Sitting of 26 April 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]
  Considered: to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Catalytic Converters
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction in levels of carbon dioxide emissions is brought about by the use of catalytic converters.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): None, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that catalytic converters are not the complete answer to the problem and that it is most important to develop a strategy to control carbon dioxide emissions and the so-called greenhouse effect on the atmosphere?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We have always recognised that catalytic converters play an important part in controlling car emissions, but they do not do the whole job because they have no effect on carbon dioxide emissions. The three-way catalyst rules out the use of lean-burn engines, which offers a promising way of saving fuel and reducing carbon dioxide. The United Kingdom treats carbon dioxide emissions and climate change with great seriousness and it is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is today hosting a seminar on global climate.
    Mr. Turner: Is the Minister aware of the excellent campaign being launched in my part of the world by the Wolverhampton Express and Star inviting companies large and small, local authorities and the private motorist to go lead-free? Even I have gone lead-free as a result of its persuasion. Would the Minister care to make a statement on that?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The campaign run by the Wolverhampton Express and Star has been mentioned to me by several hon. Members and I have met the journalist, Marion Brennan, who has worked so hard on the campaign. It has performed a magnificent task and we wish it well this weekend when it hopes to adjust 1,000 cars in one day and thus get into the "Guinness Book of Records".
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Last but not least in my green dress, I thank my hon. Friend for those sentiments and join my colleague the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) in supporting the lead that the Wolverhampton Express and Star has taken in encouraging people to use unleaded petrol. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that unleaded petrol should, be made widely available in Britain so that cars fitted with the latest emission control technology can be sold here?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. The widespread use of unleaded petrol paves the way for the stricter emission standards that we shall be introducing in Britain. The Wolverhampton experience is magnificient. I understand that 50 of its 52 garages are now stocking unleaded petrol, which means that when we introduce the stricter emission standards there will be no difficulty in complying with them.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that car exhausts make a significant and growing contribution to greenhouse gases and that the European standards of allowable car emissions are 400 times more polluting than those of the United States? The imposition of United States standards in Europe was supported by Tory Euro-MPs only this April, but it is opposed by the British Government, who intend to veto the move in the Council of Ministers. Once again, Britain is seen in Europe as the friend of the polluter and the enemy of the environment.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that in our view the way to protect the environment is by sound science and responsible action, rather than hot air and toxic words. We shall, of course, be considering the vote in the European Parliament. I have made it absolutely clear that catalysts—either oxidation or three-way catalysts—have an important part to play in protecting the environment. We have no wish, however, to rule out the use of lean-burn engines, which offer very important savings in reduced carbon dioxide and in increased fuel efficiency.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister stop ducking awkward questions and trying to cause confusion? There is no fundamental conflict between catalytic converters and lean-burn engines, which have not even been developed. Will the Minister take action now to ensure that existing technology is applied in this country to reduce the greenhouse effect? Will she also recognise that if the Prime Minister is to be properly briefed she must be told that the best way to reduce the greenhouse effect is to use existing technology to promote energy conservation rather than multiplying the number of nuclear power stations being built?
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should brush up on his GCSE science. Three-way catalytic converters entail greater use of fuel and increased production of carbon dioxide. We shall, of course, be considering carefully the Commission's response to the European Parliament before deciding on the best way forward. The Government have already accepted the strict emission standards agreed in November in the Luxembourg package and we are determined that air emissions from motor cars of a variety of types should be dealt with properly and effectively.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs would be involved in introducing a system of local government finance based on capital values and a local income tax.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): The Labour party's two-tax system could cost up to four times as much to administer as the existing rating system.
    Mr. Wardle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that a local income tax system would do very little to improve accountability, would be complex as well as expensive, and would be grossly unfair to all inner-city residents, while a capital value system would be a disaster for many people in London on relatively low incomes whose house values have risen rapidly?
    Mr. Gummer: The two-tax system proposed by Labour would produce all the worst aspects of all the other systems. It would produce the worst side of the rating system and the worst side of local income tax. Last year a ward sister in my hon. Friend's constituency earning £13,000 per year and living in a flat in Bexhill would have faced a community charge of £196, compared with £425 under the Labour scheme.[Interruption.] It is no wonder that Labour Members are trying to make enough noise to drown out the facts about their scheme.
    Mr. Wardle: Labour will never win Bexhill now. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will try to settle down.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm that, quite apart from being immoral, the poll tax will cost a great deal more to collect than the existing rates system?
    Mr. Gummer: First, the community charge will cost about half as much as the Labour party's scheme would. Secondly, I hope soon to be able to send the hon. Gentleman a pamphlet on the morality of the community charge.
    Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity between now and the county elections next Thursday to explain to the 65 per cent. of owner-occupiers in this country that the financing of local government partly by capital valuation would amount to no more than a wealth tax and would hit especially hard pensioners and people on fixed incomes throughout the nation? Will my right hon. Friend also take this opportunity to denounce the campaign of fear and distortion by Labour party headquarters in Walworth road and the issuing of letters by Labour-controlled local authorities provoking fear and concern about the cost of the community charge?
    Mr. Gummer: The community charge is fairer because everybody pays their bit. It is fairer because those who cannot afford it get help with the cost. It is also fairer because it makes a local council accountable. It is the last reason that the Labour party hates, because for the first time councils will be accountable to the electorate rather than to their local management committees and to Militant.
    Dr. Cunningham: Why are the Tories running so scared about the poll tax that they have to wrack themselves with dishonesty about the issues? Why are Ministers so terrified that they postponed the canvass to introduce the poll tax until after the county council elections? If the poll tax is so good, why have the Government refused to debate the six poll tax orders currently on the Table before 4 May? If the poll tax is so good, why do the Government keep ducking those issues? In view of the Minister's remark that everyone will pay something, will he explain why at the Tory party local government conference the Prime Minister wrongly and dishonestly said that under the poll tax—[Interruption.] Yes, dishonestly.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw "dishonestly".
    Dr. Cunningham: The Prime Minister said, wrongly and misleadingly, that 5 million people will pay nothing under the poll tax proposals. How does the Minister explain that? The Minister says that the poll tax is fairer. Perhaps he will also explain—[Interruption.] We have listened to enough drivel from the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Perhaps the Minister will also explain why it is that people with incomes as low as £54 per week will receive no poll tax rebate.
    Mr. Gummer: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask all those questions when he has refused to answer the simplest questions about his own party's proposals. He is afraid that on the doorstep Labour's two-tax scheme will be given the thumbs down by millions of people throughout the country. Five million people will receive 80 per cent. rebates, and they will receive money to cover the other 20 per cent. in their benefits. In effect, therefore, they will not pay the poll tax. They will not pay the poll tax because it is not a poll tax. The Labour party keeps using the term "poll tax" because it wants to confuse the public and make them believe that everybody will pay the same. Nine million people will have a rebate. Labour councils are trying to frighten people by pretending that they will not get help. When the hon. Gentleman comes clean about the worst proposal for local tax since the window tax, we shall begin to answer his silly questions.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather that the county council elections are some time next week, but right hon. and hon. Members should keep to the subject of questions to Ministers and deal with them in a responsible way.

    Rivers
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to change the penalties currently available for breaches of discharge consents into rivers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The maximum penalties that may be imposed by magistrates for offences under section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are fines not exceeding £2,000 and terms of imprisonment of up to three months. On indictment in the Crown court there is no limit on the fine that may be imposed, and terms

    937
    of imprisonment can be up to two years. Penalties for pollution offences are kept under regular review but there are no immediate plans for increasing them.
    Mr. Knight: Is there not a good case for making farms and businesses which break the law and pollute rivers pay the cost of cleaning them up? Does my hon. Friend agree that one current problem is that water authorities are both gamekeepers and poachers? Should not the whole House warmly welcome the establishment of the independent National Rivers Authority as the only effective way of clamping down on those who unlawfully pollute our waterways?
    Mr. Moynihan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority. At present, water authorities are empowered to recover the cost of work to prevent or to remedy pollution. We firmly believe in an extension of the principle that the polluter pays.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that one of Britain's worst industrial polluters is the so-called smokeless fuel plant in my constituency owned by British Coal? Is he aware that twice in the past three months that company has been found guilty of, and fined for, discharging pollutants into the river at six to nine times the permitted level? How does the Minister intend to get British Coal to clean up its act? Is he aware that according to the Welsh Development Agency the existence of the works is a major disincentive to bringing new jobs into the worst unemployment black spot in the whole of Wales?
    Mr. Moynihan: As the hon. Lady knows, I am unaware of that particular case and would not have responsibility for it as it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, giving due courtesy to the hon. Lady's question, I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why both business and agriculture continue to discharge pollutants into rivers, apart from the fact that they do not economically care very much, is that when they are hauled before the courts the fines are so small—nothing approaching the £2,000 to which the Minister referred—that they are not effective? Does the Minister agree that until the courts impose realistic fines, the poisoning of our rivers and harbours will continue?
    Mr. Moynihan: The Government agree that fines should he at a deterrent and not a nominal level. That is why my right hon. Friend the former Lord Chancellor urged magistrates to impose fines for pollution offences sufficient to act as a deterrent. I accept my hon. Friend's point and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has again drawn the attention of magistrates to the need to impose realistic fines for water pollution offences.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister agree that it is not only the level of fines that is important but the frequency of prosecution? Is it not a fact that many polluters take a calculated risk that it is cheaper to pollute a river and risk a rare prosecution and a small fine than to invest in controlled pollution prevention? Is the Minister aware that his concern on this issue is not taken seriously in the light of the Government's decision to exempt from prosecution
    938
    many sewage treatment plants which are in breach of their consents? When can we expect some consistency from the Minister on the principle that the polluter should pay?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Lady will continue to have total consistency from the Government when it comes to the importance of upgrading sewage treatment plants. That is why we are putting £1 billion behind that programme by 1992. I totally refute the hon. Lady's initial premise. It is obviously important to make sure that programmes of remedial treatment are put in action and agreed with the Department. That is the first and foremost priority and it will be reinforced by the National Rivers Authority.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very grave disquiet in South Devon about the Hope's Nose outfall, and has he seen the latest photograph of the discharge of untreated sewage, even if the photograph is three years old? Does he agree with me that it is unacceptable to have untreated sewage pumped either into our rivers or into the sea?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the facts about the picture published recently to the attention of the House. He will be aware that the Government share his concern that we need major improvements. That is why we are committing substantial capital expenditure towards achieving the very improvements that he and the House seek.

    Urban Development Corporations
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations publish a code of consultation with local authorities in their areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): As required by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, all urban development corporations have prepared or are in the course of preparing codes of practice as to consultation with the local authorities in their areas. UDCs are not required to publish them.
    Mr. McKay: According to evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment, the London Docklands Development Corporation failed to provide such a document in 1982. It took the corporation another seven years to find it. Is that not a clear contravention of section 140 of the 1980 Act? Will the Minister ensure that the requirement is complied with by all development corporations, both in spirit and intent?
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. We have made it clear to all UDCs and to local authorities in the areas in which UDCs operate that they should consult one another. As I indicated in my substantive reply, if they both agree, they should publish.
    Mr. Knapman: On the subject of underused land, can my hon. Friend confirm that the canal port of Sharpness in my constituency faces a bright and prosperous future, and that three factories are currently being built in the area? Can he also confirm—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary to question 4.
    Mr. Knapman: Yes, Sir—on the subject of under-used land. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is question 5."]
    Mr. Speaker: Out by one.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: There is considerable concern in London about the delay in setting up any consultation process in the docklands. Will the Minister consider introducing an amendment to the Local Government and Housing Bill to allow parish councils to be constituted in the docklands corporation part of London, which would fulfil such a purpose?
    Mr. Trippier: The simple, straightforward answer is no. I am not aware of a problem with consultation at present. Indeed, it is my clear impression that consultation with local authorities in the LDDC area is better than it has ever been.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the damage and danger caused by lack of consultation, which applies particularly to the LDDC, because of its failure to consult adequately and the lack of proper social facilities? Is the Minister aware that the errors that have been made include failure to match the provision of transport and other services, and failure to consider what the development is for and who will gain and who will lose?
    Will he investigate what is happening in the London docklands area? In the words of Sir Andrew Derbyshire,
    "the free play of market forces is not going to produce the best results in terms of quality".
    Mr. C. J. Shepley, president of the royal town planning institute, has said:
    "I fear that in 25 years we will look back on Docklands in exactly the same way that we now look back on 1960s housing schemes."
    In other words, we shall see it as a total failure.
    Mr. Trippier: I entirely reject all that the hon. Gentleman has said. He and his colleagues should break the habit of a lifetime and say something nice and positive about urban development corporations, especially the LDDC. The corporation's single-minded and single-purpose approach has regenerated an area of London which has been stagnant in the past and was certainly going downhill under the last Labour Administration. We have revived it, creating wealth and work. That means jobs, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise that.

    Land
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land were added to the register in the last five years, and how many were removed, in 1988.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land will be removed from the register as a result of the privatisation of the water authorities.
    Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land will be removed from the register as a result of the privatisation of the electricity boards.
    Mr. Trippier: A total of 37,805 acres were added to the registers in the five years up to the end of 1988, and 10,943 acres were removed in 1988.
    940
    In all 2,933 acres of electricity board land and 2,243 acres of water authority land are currently on the register. I cannot predict what the figures will be immediately prior to privatisation.
    Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend realise that 17 per cent. of all land—vacant, public, derelict, dormant land —on the register in 1983 has been disposed of, but that 83 per cent. remains on the register? In his answer my hon. Friend said that more than 37,000 additional acres of public land—vacant, dormant and under-utilised—had been added to the register. Is he aware that even without any extra land being added it will take more than 30 years to get rid of the surplus public land that is vacant and it will cost the Government about £19 million in Civil Service costs to the Department to run the register for that period? Surely my hon. Friend should do something more dramatic. Why does he not auction off the land?
    Mr. Trippier: I think that my hon. Friend is being unfair. If he looks carefully at the figures he will see that the Department's policy has been very successful. Since 1981, 164,900 acres have been entered on the register. By 31 March 1989, 80,700 acres had been removed, which is about half, mostly because the owners had sold it or brought it into use. There were then 84,200 acres on the register. There has been a net reduction of half in a very short time, and I consider that most impressive.
    Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept none the less that the amount of unused and underused land on and off the register is still far too large? Will he do everything that he can to ensure that that land is brought into use? Does he agree that without in any way avoiding the planning rules, weak as they are, the privatisation of water will help to bring some of that unused and underused land into use to save our green fields and our environment?
    Mr. Trippier: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. The difference between land in private ownership and land in public ownership is that the publicly owned land is not subject to the market conditions and disciplines which apply in the private sector. Of course I am not satisfied—it would be silly for me to say that I was—with the amount of public land registered as unused and underused. But we are making significant strides in reducing that amount. Ministers in various Departments should set an example to local authorities, and we are undergoing a period of consultation to produce a code of practice which will enable us to set that example.
    Mr. Bevan: Why is my hon. Friend so resistant to bringing more public vacant land on to the market by the utilisation of the public land urban management scheme, which is supported by nearly 200 Conservative Members, or by some other private scheme which will result in an even greater amount of public land being brought into beneficial use for society?
    Mr. Trippier: My answer is very simple and straightforward. My right hon. Friend and I have listened very carefully to the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and we are not convinced that the PLUMS alternative is in any way better than the existing system. As I have said in my substantive and supplementary replies, we are achieving the desired objective in a speedy fashion.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister comment on the extending and intensifying problem of land which is surplus to British Coal's requirements as a result of the rapid contraction of that industry? I think that he recognises, but will he maintain, that we need urgently a dramatic, imaginative and extensive additional programme of derelict land grant?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter at some length in the past. I was pleased to respond to his request and to give an additional allocation to the Dearne Valley after he showed me round his constituency and explained the problems that exist there. I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment recognise that where there are mining closures there needs to be a concentration of derelict land grant. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have met his concern, at least for the moment.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister bear in mind that some unused land is available as a green lung to urban areas such as Low Moor in my constituency? Will he ensure that local authorities do not try to corrupt the local plan to avoid submitting proposals for change to his Department so that the wishes of local residents to keep areas of unused land are frustrated—particularly in areas such as Low Moor, where there are two major chemical plants—because areas of unused land are an extremely valuable asset in those circumstances?
    Mr. Trippier: That is entirely a matter for planning legislation. I maintain that planning controls in that respect are very tight and very effective.

    Planning Zones
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been set up since their introduction; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): In England, simplified planning zones have been adopted and brought into operation by Derby and Corby. Schemes are at various stages of preparation in Birmingham, Rotherham, Cleethorpes, Glanford and Scunthorpe, Enfield and Slough. Other authorities are considering possible designations.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response by local authorities and others has been somewhat disappointing? Does he agree that some of the obstacles placed in the way of entrepreneurs and developers, who are trying to regenerate our inner cities and urban areas, are put there by planners and planning regulations, which, in turn, puts more pressure on green field sites to be made available. Is it not, therefore, important to encourage the greater use of simplified planning zones? If my right hon. Friend agrees with that, can he tell the House how he intends to go about encouraging councils and developers to set up more simplified planning zones?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is somewhat disappointing that so few simplified planning zones have come forward and I agree that the existence of a relaxed planning regime is an essential ingredient in getting redevelopment going in derelict industrial areas. The difficulties often stem from
    942
    councils—sometimes even under Labour control—having an antipathy to relinquishing their detailed powers of development. I do not know why they should have that antipathy if they believe in the renewed prosperity of their areas. I wish that there was something that I could do to encourage them to be more bold. The electorate will have a chance to do something fairly soon at the coming county council elections.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State agree that in the climate that exists in many inner cities, the value of planning has been demeaned by economic and financial pressures and that planning permission is given which is not necessarily to the long-term benefit of those who have to live in inner cities? The marjority of people who live in green sites areas see what little there is in the inner cities in terms of land available for leisure, which is at a minimum, to say the least.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman, who comes from a declining industrial area in one of our inner cities, must realise that there is a choice between detailed and over-fussy planning control and the regeneration of areas leading to jobs for the people and the rebuilding of prosperity in his city. He seems to imply that he is taking the wrong choice in that dilemma.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish tables showing the average community charge in each local authority if introduced in 1989—90; and if he will make figures available arranged by reference to the controlling party in each such authority.
    Mr. Gummer: As last year, the illustrative figures will be published once we have obtained and analysed the data needed from local authorities.
    Mr. Franks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that roughly £4 out of every spent in county council areas is spent by the county councils themselves and that the level of community charge over the next few years will be determined largely by which party gains control of county halls next week? Is that not the best reason why in counties such as Cumbria, which has a minority Labour administration sustained by Liberal support, the electorate should vote Conservative for lower community charges and better value for money?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the 10 councils with the lowest rate poundage are all Conservative. None of the 10 with the highest rate poundage are Conservative. The community charge will reflect largely whether there is a prudent authority in county hall or whether Labour, which is always followed as fast as possible by the SLD, Liberals and the rest, continues to control them. It is good to see one Liberal present in the Chamber.
    Mr. Pike: If the poll tax had anything to do with accountability, as the Government have claimed repeatedly, why did they not accept the option when the Local Government Bill was going through Parliament to allow county councils to collect their own poll tax? Is it not true that areas such as north-east Lancashire will have massive

    943
    increases in the poll tax next year, regardless of political control, because the Government will give less money to local government to run essential local services?
    Mr. Gummer: The community charge will be collected by district councils, just as the rates are. It will be quite clear from the bill which portion comes from the county council. In Lancashire, it will be clear that Lancashire county council has been over-spending permanently during the period of Labour control.
    Mr. Oppenheim: In the black roll of dishonour of the highest spending county councils in England and Wales, does not Derbyshire have a prominent and special place as one of the most irresponsible, profligate and high-spending councils in the country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if people in Derbyshire want a lower community charge next year the best way to achieve that is to vote out the pack of pocket Lenins who have made Derbyshire among the highest-rated counties?
    Mr. Gummer: Derbyshire is, in fact, the worst-run county in Britain and until this year it had the highest rate in England. It has just been beaten by Labour-controlled Cleveland. The only way in which Derbyshire ratepayers can get a reasonable deal is to remove the leader and his followers of Derbyshire county council, which has a bad record of overspending and underproviding. The cost per library book in Derbyshire is unbelievably high because its services are unbelievably badly run.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Why did the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) sign an early-day motion in support of Derbyshire county council's initiative in connection with Toyota if he feels that it is such a disastrous authority? What will be the impact of the poll tax on local authorities in view of the fact that figures published yesterday show that 35,000 people are missing from the electoral register in Liverpool, 14,000 from the electoral register in Glasgow, 14,000 in Manchester and 9,000 in Birmingham?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the electoral register is wholly different from the community charge register. The only reason why anybody should make the mistake that they are the same is because of Labour party propaganda using the phrase "poll tax". If anybody is off the register for that reason, it is the dishonesty of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that has led them in that direction.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Gummer: I withdraw the word "dishonesty" and substitute "misleading".
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend consider the point that has just been made by the Opposition spokesman for the environment, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in view of the fact that Toyota has just come to Derbyshire? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason Toyota may have come to Derbyshire is that we will have a uniform business rate which will mean that businesses will not be put at a disadvantage by loony Left-wing councils, such as Derbyshire county council?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. Had the present system continued, Derbyshire county council would have
    944
    continued to push business out of Derbyshire by imposing high rates. Now it cannot force jobs out of Derbyshire because the uniform business rate will bring down the rates in high-rated Labour authorities and ensure that there are more jobs in the areas of the country that most need them. That shows once again that we are giving to each according to his need and taking from each according to his ability.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is it not typical of the confused double standards of the Tory party that Conservative Members congratulate Derbyshire on its successful attraction of the Toyota investment—one of the biggest inward investments ever to come to Britain—and then, for their own naked political opportunism, come here and abuse the same county? As the Minister of State mentioned rate poundages, may I remind him that people do not pay rate poundages, they pay rate bills? May I also remind him that the counties with the highest average domestic rate bills are Buckinghamshire, which is Tory-controlled, where the average rate bill is £664, and Surrey, which is also Tory-controlled, where the average rate bill is £614, and that the three counties with the lowest average rates bills are all Labour-controlled—Durham Lancashire and Cumbria?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman represents the party that wants people to pay higher and higher rates on the value of their houses; the party that would exacerbate that unfairness by increasing the cost in all those areas where the value of housing is high and decreasing it in other areas. The only fairness is to consider the rate poundage. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the present rating system, which is why he opposes the community charge. The community charge will make the system fair.
    Mr. Hanley: If my right hon. Friend publishes projected figures for the community charge, will he make sure that he publishes the figures for the five years following the year in question so that my constituents will see the reduction caused by the removal of the safety net, which at present penalises those living in outer London boroughs?
    Mr. Gummer: I cannot publish the figures because I do not know what the local authority will spend in each of those successive years. Every pound per adult that a local authority overspends means an extra pound on the community charge. That is why the Labour party hates the community charge—because it means that every time they spend an extra pound on the police monitoring committee or on special arrangements for the gay bereavement cause, that pound goes directly on to what is paid by the ratepayers. The community charge produces a fair system because everybody knows whether a local authority is overspending. If one looks, for example, at the local authorities in London, one has to say that overspending has become a way of life.
    Until we have the community charge, places such as Ealing, Tower Hamlets and Camden will never begin to cut their coats according to their cloth.

    Pollution Inspectorate
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to retain the existing district structure of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
    Mr. Ridley: No Sir. We are currently reorganising the field force of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on an integrated basis to produce a much more effective deployment of resources. A three-region structure is being developed covering the north, south-west and south-east. This approach was adopted to ensure large enough management units to secure an adequate mix of skills to match the varying types of processes subject to control by the inspectorate.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern that exists among local authorities and industrialists lest the Government's proposals for restructuring the inspectorate result in a loss of continuity at local level, with knowledge that has been built up locally over many years being lost? Will the Government further consider these local elements?
    Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The new streamlined organisation that we are proposing will greatly facilitate the integration of control of pollution to the three elements—air, water and land —which of course was the point of the integration, which is why the solution that we propose is a good one. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the fact that one of the five deputy chief inspectors left to take up a post in the private sector. But, then, so did Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk. Another of the chief inspectors resigned after changing his mind about some of the detailed aspects of the reorganisation proposals. That is exactly what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) did.
    Mr. Knapman: Relating to pollution and possibly to underused land, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the port of Sharpness in my constituency has a prosperous future, with three new factories being built? Can he also confirm that it is not suitable as a site for a toxic waste dump, despite rumours to the contrary?
    Mr. Ridley: I can confirm that there are no sites taking hazardous waste in the Sharpness area or indeed anywhere in my hon. Friend's constituency and that there are no plans for any such hazardous waste sites there. If any hazardous waste site were to be proposed near the Sharpness canal or any other area in the lower reaches of the Severn, there would be severe water pollution problems, and that would be strictly against the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. In addition, the necessary consents would, of course, be required.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Secretary of State agree that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is in a complete mess? It is still unable to recruit staff. Is he aware that Dr. Martin Biggs, who heads the local authority unit in Birmingham, is still working from his front room at home because after eight months it has not been possible to find an office for him? How can the Secretary of State justify the departure from the organisation of HMIP at district level, which used the local knowledge of local authorities? On this very day of all days, when supposedly such urgent discussions are taking place at Downing street, why will he not come to the House and tell us that he will take effective action to ensure that the country has the integrated pollution control system that it needs.
    Mr. Ridley: I have come to the House, abandoning the important discussions to which the hon. Lady referred. I am disappointed that I have had to come to the House to
    946
    deal with such a piffling point. The hon. Lady is wrong. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is in very good health. The organisation has had to be changed. It is being improved. I think that it would help the cause of protecting the environment if the hon. Lady were to stop trying to make quick, cheap points of the sort that she has just tried to make.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the case for a system of local government finance based on capital value rates and local income tax; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: Not surprisingly, I have received scarcely any representations in favour of Labour's two-tax system, which would be cripplingly expensive, would do virtually nothing to restore local accountability, and would replicate the unfairnesses of existing domestic rates.
    Mr. Bennett: Is it not the case that two of the many disadvantages of Labour's twin-tax policy would be that under a local income tax Labour councils could bleed their residents dry and under the capital value tax residents would have to pay increases every time house prices rose, irrespective of increases in income? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on the issue is due to the realisation that Labour has shot itself in the foot again?
    Mr. Gummer: There is a serious problem about a capital value tax because four out of 10 people who live in more expensive houses have less than average incomes and, therefore, would not have the means to pay the tax. The truth is that Labour Members no longer wish to talk about their tax system because they found it so unpopular on the doorstep.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister realise that the electors whom he is trying to reach with his statements today will treat his remarks about the Labour party's proposal with disdain because they recall that it is not so long ago that he, other Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers were dismissing the poll tax with equal disdain and saying that it was iniquitous and would never be brought in? Now they have changed their minds.
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that I have been a supporter of the community charge, not just since the Government proposed it. The reason that I am a supporter is that it is fairer first, because everbody pays his bit, secondly, because everybody who needs help gets it, and thirdly, because it means that the local community has control over what the local council spends on its behalf. None of those three things applies to the two-tax Labour scheme.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend will know that Clifton estate in my constituency of Nottingham, South consists of 9,000 properties; it is the second largest in England. Nearly half of those properties have been purchased by the tenants under the Government's right to buy. All of them have poured their life savings into what are now their homes. Is there any moral basis for charging those people a higher local tax merely because they have improved their homes?
    Mr. Gummer: No, there is not, but it would be worse than that under Labour's proposals. My hon. Friend must remember that all the tenants who have not bought their homes would be charged the capital value of the houses of which they were tenants. So neither they nor their children could even look forward to realising that capital value. Not only would they not have the means whereby to pay the tax, but they would be hit as tenants on the capital value of the houses. It is a scandalously immoral proposal.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister accept that his last answer is such gobbledeygook that it is not even worth commenting on? When people register and find out what the poll tax means, the 21 million people who will lose and everyone else who has a sense of decency and believes in a tax based on the ability to pay—whether in Northumbria, Cumbria, Lancashire or Avon—will cast their votes on 4 May for a fair tax system that takes from people with the ability to pay and distributes grants in a sensible fashion.
    Mr. Gummer: A system that takes from people according to their ability to pay cannot be fair if it is based on the value of a house. If one accepts that, how does one explain to the four out of 10 people who have less than average earnings, but live in houses which would have above—
    Dr. Cunningham: Rebate.
    Mr. Gummer: So it would be done by rebate. What is wrong with the rebate on the community charge? The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has again shot himself in the foot. The hon. Member refuses to give the information upon which his tax proposal could be commented, because he is afraid of doing so. He then misleads the public by refusing to point out the rebates which we have in our system.

    Housing Corporation Budget
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation to discuss the corporation's budget.
    Mr. Trippier: My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside and I meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation regularly.
    Mr. Baldry: Further to that answer, can my hon. Friend confirm that the Housing Corporation will enable housing associations to have ample provision in rural areas such as north Oxfordshire? What are the Government doing to encourage local authorities to take advantage of the new planning powers for development, to enable the building of more local homes for local people on low incomes?
    Mr. Trippier: We are certainly providing for an expansion of housing association provision in rural areas, and north Oxfordshire will benefit from that expansion. We will soon be issuing to planning authorities a revised version of our guidance on land for housing.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister have urgent discussions with the Housing Corporation to ensure that any redevelopment of the Lower Grange estate in my constituency has adequate properties to rent at rents that those who wish to live on the estate can afford to pay?
    Mr. Trippier: That was the purpose of the Housing Act 1988. It encourages housing associations—perhaps sponsored by the Housing Corporation—to make available properties at rents within the means of those on low pay.
    Mr. Bowis: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Housing Corporation, will he express our congratulations to the housing association movements on their contribution to housing? Will my hon. Friend also tell the chairman that it is no part of its remit to lock people out of home ownership and, therefore, will he bring forward plans to give the right to buy to housing association tenants and, in the meantime, encourage equity-sharing schemes?
    Mr. Trippier: I shall certainly pass on the congratulaions of my hon. Friend to the chairman of the Housing Corporation. My hon. Friend will be aware that approximately half of the housing associations have properties where the right to buy can exist. It depends on whether they are charitable or non-charitable. If they are non-charitable, they can certainly allow people to buy their homes.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will be aware that in areas such as mine young couples have terrible problems in finding a home that they can afford to buy or rent, especially in small rural villages. Will the Minister remind the House of the pitiful proportion of the Housing Corporation's funds that go to rural areas? What proportion does he hope will be spent in future in rural areas, as that is at least one way of alleviating the problem for couples in areas such as mine?
    Mr. Trippier: It is not a pitiful proportion. The amount of money that we are making available to the Housing Corporation for the need identified by the hon. Gentleman has quadrupled. The hon. Gentleman also chooses conveniently to forget that we can have private sector finance or even mixed funding going into developments in the rural areas. [Interruption.] I am answering the question. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has the attention span of a gerbil, but I am trying to answer the question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Remarks of that kind do not help us here.
    Mr. Trippier: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I am answering the question. I am addressing the precise point which the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise. It relates to the development of rural housing which is within the reach of people on low pay. That is precisely what we are doing with the new housing association initiative and the mixed funding which is now allowed under the Housing Act 1988.

    Right to Buy
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give fresh consideration to removing the right to buy out the freehold from shared equity housing schemes.
    Mr. Trippier: No, Sir. But we have announced proposals which would allow housing associations in certain rural areas the right of first refusal if a shared

    949
    owner wants to sell, and where a scheme is entirely privately financed, it is already possible to restrict the shared owner's right to buy the freehold.
    Mr. Gill: Is my hon. Friend aware of my continuing concern about low-cost housing in rural areas? While applauding the easing of the planning constraints by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor's announcement about the tax treatment of the proceeds of the sale of land below market prices for the purpose of affordable housing, does my hon. Friend accept that it is the success of this Government's policies in encouraging home ownership which has meant that the modern generation aspires to own their own home rather than to tenant it? Any additional help which my hon. Friend can give to housing associations to provide for that market will be very much appreciated.
    Mr. Trippier: I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has mentioned the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the recent Budget about tax changes which will help development in rural areas. My hon. Friend also referred to the announcement recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the easing of planning constraints. I simply draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that although I accept that he may not have liked my substantive answer to his substantive question, the truth is that the Housing Act 1988 has made it possible to offer privately financed shared ownership schemes with non-staircasing and we are not restricting those in any way at all.

Baby Food (Contamination)
3.32 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the contamination of baby food.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It is difficult to imagine the twisted minds that could mount such a vicious attack on defenceless babies.
Of 17 incidents of baby food being reported as contaminatd since 7 April and 11 more reported today, a number have been recognised as examples of deliberate contamination and are the subject of police inquiries co-ordinated by the Metropolitan police. In some cases there have been blackmail demands. It would not be helpful for police investigations if I were to go into greater detail, as I am sure that the House will readily understand.
Wherever such incidents have been reported, immediate steps have been taken by the police, the manufacturers and the retailers to remove products of the kind that have been found to be contaminated from the stores concerned and to warn the public of the risk. The police are giving these investigations the highest priority. Parents and others looking after babies should in the meantime exercise the greatest care in checking both the seals of baby food containers and their contents before feeding children.
Mr. Sheerman: The Opposition share the deep concern felt by the public in general and the parents of young children and particularly of small infants about this horrible campaign which attacks the most vulnerable members of society. The Oppositon want to know whether the Government understand that this is a co-ordinated attack on the food of a vulnerable part of our society and whether the police are taking sufficiently energetic steps to bring the culprits to justice. We need to know in the House whether the reports in the press that this is a very highly sophisticated criminal activity, perhaps of a Mafia style of operation, are true, or if it is, one, off operation. Do the police know whether that is the case?
The House will wish to know whether the powers under the Food Act 1984 are sufficient to allow local authorities to step in and help the police to protect the public from contaminated food. We do not want the inquirers to be embarrassed, but there have been disturbing reports this morning that large sums of money have already been paid to such blackmailers. I hope that the Minister can reassure us both on that point and also that the police and local authorities are protecting young children from contaminated food.
Mr. Patten: First, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of support for what the police and others are doing, and for his words of condemnation, on behalf of the official Opposition, for these foul and despicable attacks, which are of a most cowardly nature and against the vulnerable in our society. I am sure that the whole House is united in that condemnation.
Secondly, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition that the police are, and have been, doing everything possible to investigate these serious threats to individual safety. Thirdly, I and the Government are convinced that the powers available under the Food Act
952
1984 are adequate to enable local authorities to assist the police and public safety by ensuring that food sold in shops is fit to eat.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that I cannot respond in detail to the specific questions that he asked about operational matters. The Government are determined to resist all attempts at consumer terrorism in this country.
Mr. Barry Field: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I understand that Mrs. Laura Russell, when feeding her six-month-old baby, Chantelle, in Newport on the Isle of Wight on Saturday, discovered a sliver of glass in a jar of Heinz chocolate dessert. The baby was subsequently examined at the Royal County hospital on the Isle of Wight and, mercifully, found to be unharmed. Those events took place on Saturday, but only came to light yesterday. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence over the matter. I understand that, even as I speak, similar products are still on the shelves in the same stores, and available to the public.
Mr. Patten: There is no conspiracy of silence. This afternoon I have given the House and my hon. Friend the full facts as I and the Home Office know them. May I express my horror at the unfortunate assault—for that is what it is—on the child in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am extremely glad that the child suffered no ill effects. No baby or young child has suffered serious injury from contaminated food, thanks to the vigilance of parents.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I, from my side of the argument, support the Government's attempts to resist consumer terrorism? They are entirely right to do so. I hope that the police make speedy progress in bringing the criminals to book so that they get their just desserts in the courts. If this is a long-term problem and the inquiry takes weeks, if not longer, will the Minister look again at the Food Act 1984 to find out whether the Government have powers to encourage local authorities to insist that this small range of baby foods—it is not a vast range of products—are sold with attended across-the-counter service, as opposed to unattended supermarket service? In that way, we can try to give the public some confidence that such events will not happen again.
Mr. Patten: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for our stalwart attempts to ensure that this country never gives in to consumer terrorism and the hijacking of food shops and stores up and down the land, which would have a destabilising effect. The Government are determined in all circumstances to resist that. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion about the workings of the Food Act. We are convinced that the Act contains adequate powers for local authorities, environmental health officers and others to investigate any suggestion of food being unfit. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's interesting suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. James Hill: Does not my hon. Friend agree that these are crimes of magnitude and should not be trivialised in any way? Will he confirm that, if a baby were to die during this present epidemic of pollution of cans and jars, the police would treat such an event as murder, and that the provisions of the courts would be correspondingly increased?

953
May I make two useful suggestions? First, food of this type should be displayed in a prominent part of supermarkets under the eyes and ears of those who work at the cash registers and in the reception areas. That will mean that people cannot sneak behind the display counters and do their work.
Secondly, warning notices should immediately be placed in all supermarkets that deal with these types of food telling people to be vigilant and saying that those tampering with products should be reported to the management as soon as they are spotted. Such signs would increase the vigilance of customers and staff in all these supermarkets.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right to say that the charges that could be laid by the police—it would be their decision—could range from assault up to attempted murder, punishable by life imprisonment. The most severe penalties are available to the courts, should such charges he laid. I am sure that the food manufacturing industry, which has an excellent record of health, safety and hygiene in manufacturing baby foods in this country over many years, will have listened carefully to all the advice given to it.
There is no evidence of any of these foodstuffs being contaminated during the manufacturing process—hence, what my hon. Friend has said is right. It is up to retailers and others to exercise maximum vigilance in the stores where these foodstuffs are sold. I am sure that they will listen as carefully to my hon. Friend as I did when he gave excellent advice on the radio this morning.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Although I appreciate that it may be difficult to divulge a great deal of information at this stage, since different brands of food and different types of containers have been found to be affected in different parts of the country, will the Minister assure us that he will consider providing the maximum possible information in the circumstances to consumers, who are very worried about the problem?
Mr. Patten: We will certainly make available to consumers all the information that we have. I have given all the facts this afternoon. A range of products made by two manufacturers have been affected.
Mr. David Martin: I welcome very much what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that all sane people will agree that we must never give way to such blackmailing campaigns.
My constituent, Mrs. Murphy, is quite convinced that the seal on the pineapple dessert that she bought had not been tampered with. We need to allay the fears of those who believe that the production process, as well as the opportunities that arise for contamination on the shelves, should be thoroughly investigated. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that, too.
Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks, and I pass on my sorrow, through him, to his constituent for her experience. I am extremely glad that the child is safe and well.
I do not want to go into details of police investigations, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, on the information given to me as late as this afternoon, the police have no evidence of contamination during the manufacturing process, and considerable evidence of contamination at a later stage.
Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome the Minister's statement and assure him of our support for his stand against consumer terrorism in Northern Ireland, where shops have been affected.
Can the Minister shed any light on the allegations that considerable sums have already been paid out for blackmail? Have funds been supplied through insurance companies such as Risk Control to allow firms to deal with such matters? Surely that, in itself, will encourage such campaigns?
Mr. Patten: I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in his constituency and in the Province, with its troubled recent past, will appreciate that it is sometimes less than helpful not only to give information about police investigations, but even to speculate about them. I hope that he will foregive me if I do not answer his question more fully than that on this occasion.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, and I thank the whole House for its determination to ensure that the country never gives in to consumer terrorism.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: It is right that my hon. Friend should play no part in spreading alarmist fears, but, with respect, does he agree that his statement should have gone a great deal further in showing the risks to parents and consumers? In particular, as most of the incidents appear to have taken place in the south-east and, to a lesser extent, in the midlands, is this a regional problem? Is it isolated to certain types of food? What should people be looking out for in jars and cans and what measures can they take—for example sieving their contents—to prevent any risk to their children?
Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's question and the opportunity that it gives to provide the information that he thinks would be helpful. First, the incidents are far from restricted to the south-east. They have occurred in the north-west, Cheshire and possibly Lancashire. Secondly, I can give a complete list of the forms of contamination which my lion. Friend might find of interest, as would parents. Contamination has included the insertion of glass splinters, pins, broken razor blades and, on one occasion, caustic soda.
The advice that I gave the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is good advice: parents should take the greatest possible care to check the seals of containers. Thereafter, they should take the greatest possible care to check the foodstuff before it is served to their child or children, and that includes looking at and smelling the substance to make sure that it is pure.
Mr. Roger Stott: Is the Minister aware that I agree with everything that he has said about this appalling state of affairs, and that I am grateful for what he said earlier—that there is no evidence of the source of the contamination being the factory but that contamination takes place beyond that, either in the shop, in transit, or wherever? I am sure that what he has said this afternoon will be welcomed by many thousands of my constituents who work in Heinz's factory in Wigan.
Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Firms such as Heinz and Cow and Gate have an excellent record, recognised worldwide, in food hygiene and safety. I can only repeat that the police have no evidence of contamination during the production process.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is it not hard for the House to comprehend that sick people in our society, for the sake of a cause, would risk subjecting innocent babies to lethal injury? Thank God that there has been no real tragedy to date. Will the Government monitor the situation carefully and reassure those anxious mothers who now fear buying any baby foods that every possible action will be taken on their behalf?
Mr. Patten: I can assure my hon. Friend that—most importantly of all—the police, the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present—and the Department of Health are doing everything possible to ensure that all avenues are included.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I shall call one more hon. Member.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the seals to which he referred during the exchanges are in all cases adequate? It would seem that we need urgently to consider the sealing of such products so that customers can be entirely confident that the products have not been tampered with.
Mr. Patten: I cannot give a straight answer to that question because I have not examined all the seals, nor do I, alas, have exact evidence of the different sorts of seals used. I do know that the police are convinced that, under most circumstances, the seals woud have had to be broken to admit the contaminated objects, liquid or substance. In the meantime, it is important for parents and those who care for children to be as vigilant as possible.

Agriculture Council (Price Fixing)
3.48 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council dealing with this year's price review.
Last week's Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, was devoted almost entirely to the Commission's proposals for agricultural prices and related measures for 1989–90. After a whole week of negotiations, agreement was finally reached on a compromise package in the early hours of the morning of Saturday 22 April.
The package represents a very satisfactory outcome for the United Kingdom. It meets our key objectives of respecting the February 1988 European Council conclusions, in particular not weakening the stabiliser mechanisms; and of ensuring a fair deal for United Kingdom farmers which improves their competitive position. The Commission confirmed, at the completion of the negotiations, that the 1989 budget for CAP guaranteed expenditure would be respected and that expenditure in 1990 would be well within the financial guidelines.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I obtained a substantial devaluation of the green rate at which support prices in ecu are converted into sterling. It will reduce United Kingdom monetary gaps generally by one half, and completely remove the monetary gap, and therefore the monetary compensatory amount, for beef. At my insistence, the discriminatory element of the Commission's original proposal, which envisaged dismantling only one third of the gap, was completely removed. Overall, this has a significantly favourable effect on MCAs from the United Kingdom point of view.
The devaluations will take place at the beginning of 1989–90 marketing years and will improve our farmers' competitive position relative to those in other member states. In themselves, they should increase United Kingdom producer incomes by about £155 million in a full year, when all the effects have worked through.
The changes to green rates for the United Kingdom and other member states represent a further significant step toward the complete dismantling of monetary gaps, and hence MCAs, by 1992—certainly by the end of 1992—for which I have been consistently pressing.
Turning to other elements of the package, a major breakthrough was achieved on the levels of milk co-responsibility levy. From the 1989–90 marketing year, no co-responsibility levy will be charged on milk produced in the less-favoured areas, and the levy on milk produced outside those areas will be reduced by 0·5 per cent., to rates of I per cent. for producers of up to 60,000 kg per year, and 1·5 per cent. for other producers. Most important, it was agreed that this is the first step towards complete elimination of the levy, and the Commission undertook to propose a further step for 1990–91.
I have always opposed co-responsibility levies as a mechanism for CAP reform, and have constantly pressed for their reduction and subsequent elimination, so this development is greatly to be welcomed. The cost of the changes will be met by a 2 per cent. cut in the intervention price for butter and by management measures. Moreover, following my pressure, it has been agreed that the

957
Commission will examine the administration of the co-responsibility levy for cereals and will submit any appropriate proposals.
The Commission will also study the functioning of the milk quota system, and I will be pressing for that to include the question of greater flexibility in the transfer of quotas.
Community prices for sugar will be reduced by 2 per cent. this year. This is considerably less than the Commission's proposal for a 5 per cent. cut, and reflects the concerns expressed by member states, including the United Kingdom, about the effect both on Community producers and on the suppliers of cane sugar from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. As a condition of my agreement, I secured a comitment to safeguard the position of Community refiners of cane sugar.
In addition, the support prices for field beans and for a number of Mediterranean products will be reduced, and the stabiliser mechanism extended to cauliflowers and apples. Basic support prices for other products will remain unchanged in ecu terms, but the prices actually applied are liable to be cut automatically, under the stabiliser arrangements, if output exceeds a given level. In addition, there will be a reduction in the period of intervention for cereals and oilseeds, and lower monthly price increases for those commodities and for protein crops.
The existing definition of double-low rapeseed—sometimes called double-zero rapeseed—has been extended to 1990–91. I pressed for this delay, which is of importance to our growers, as commercially viable varieties able reliably to meet a lower definition in United Kingdom conditions are not yet available.
During the Council I took a further opportunity to raise yet again the importance of taking early and effective action to combat fraud in the CAP.
The settlement keeps within the budgetary limits, extends the stabiliser mechanisms, further improves the competitive position of United Kingdom farmers, and has only a very small effect indeed on the retail price index. Overall, therefore, it is a good settlement for United Kingdom interests.
Dr. David Clark: I welcome the Minister's success in obtaining abolition of the co-responsibility levies in certain areas and reductions of those on the MCAs. Equally, I welcome the review of the milk quota. I urge the Minister to try to ensure that this is done as speedily as possible, because we really must avoid too much uncertainty creeping into the dairy sector.
The Minister emphasised that the recent EC price proposals kept within the budget requirements laid down at the February 1988 summit. I cannot understand why the Minister takes credit for that. My understanding of the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 15 February 1988 is that those restrictions were legally binding, so the Minister and his colleagues had no option but to keep within the relevant financial disciplines. Will the Minister confirm that that legally binding requirement stands?
To what extent does the Minister believe that we managed to remain within the financial guidelines because of the greenhouse effect and of the drought in the United States, as opposed to careful management by the Commission? To us, that is a key point. About two thirds of total Community spending has been on agriculture. At last year's Brussels summit, it was agreed that that proportion would be reduced. Will the Minister say by
958
how much the review has reduced the amount of spending on agriculture as a percentage of European funding as a whole?
The Minister stated that, as a result of the review, prices for farmers will increase by more than £115 million. Bearing in mind the fact that Britain already faces high inflation and that food prices are creeping up, will the Minister say by how much he estimates that the agreement will increase prices in the shops? That matter concerns a great many people.
The Minister referred quite rightly to fraud. As he and I both know, between 10 and 20 per cent. of the CAP budget is lost through fraud. The Minister has been strong on rhetoric but weak on support. Those are not my own words but the sentiments expressed by Lord Cockfield when speaking in another place—[Laughter.] Right hon. and hon. Members may laugh, but Lord Cockfield was the Commissioner dealing with the matter, and I suggest that he knows considerably more about it than right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
What action is the Minister taking to put his own house in order? He will recall that it is more than three months since the director of the serious fraud office, John Wood, revealed that he was close to completing inquiries into two significant cases of agricultural fraud in Britain involving EC moneys. Will the Minister confirm that those cases exist in reality and say when definite action may be expected?
Intertwined with the EEC price review have been general discussions on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has hurried back from an important conference in the United States where he discussed that matter. Will the Minister explain how the price review will aid our discussions in GATT? If trade protection is cut and the resulting high food prices, consumer taxes and Third world destabilisation are all to be tackled, we must ensure that the latest review is helpful to that process.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments and for his welcome to many parts of the package.
The milk quota review really concerns the functioning of the milk quota and does not apply to the future of the milk quota system after 1992. 1, like the hon. Gentleman and all dairy farmers, am anxious that that matter should be discussed in the Council at an early stage, so that our farmers will know the way ahead in the 1990s. I have pressed for that many times, but it was not right to raise that matter in these price negotiations. The review will be about the functioning of the system. I hope, as I made clear, that we shall secure changes in transferability and greater flexibility. There will be an early report, because the Commission has undertaken to report on that aspect by the end of July this year.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that we have to operate under legally binding limits, which certainly affect the climate in which the discussions take place. However, it is right that we should ask the Commission each year, at the end of our negotiations, to make it clear that we have fully met those legally binding limits. If there is any risk of over-running them, we would need to have a joint meeting with ECOFIN. As I have said, clearly we are well within the limits.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the drought in North America has had some impact on Community

959
expenditure this year. It is also important to recognise that the stabilisers are having their effect, too, and that, without any question, the impact is already coming through. Indeed, as a result of those negotiations we are well below the legally binding guidelines for both this coming year and the year after. That is a very good outcome.
The hon. Gentleman asked by what percentage the proportion of total Community spending devoted to agriculture had been reduced. We are actually still working out the precise figures, and pehaps I can let him have that information shortly. He also asked about the impact on consumers, and I am pleased to tell him that the outcome of these negotiations, which is favourable to our farmers, has virtually nil impact on the retail price index—at most, one twentieth of 1 per cent.
I reject entirely the view that I have been weak on support in asking for actions on fraud. I have raised this matter very regularly in the Council since I became Minister, orginally with little support from other Ministers. I am pleased to say that that support is growing almost by the month. On this occasion, four Ministers specifically spoke strongly in favour of the actions I was recommending. There are three sorts. First, I asked the Commission to look into the allegations made in the European Parliament recently about butter expenditure, and to report. Secondly, I asked for an action programme on the Court of Auditors' report and recommendations on intervention and various aspects of the existing system. I was given a very good timetable of proposals due to come in front of our Council soon from the Agriculture Commissioner. I am satisfied that he treats this matter with as much seriousness as I do.
Thirdly, I floated the suggestion that in future, when we are looking at major changes to any proposal or at any new proposal, in addition to having a report on the financial consequences, we should have from the Commission a report on how any new proposal would be controlled, administered and made fraud-proof. I hope that that suggestion will increasingly get support. To me, for the future, that is one of the major contributions the Agriculture Council can make in reducing fraud.
Finally, on GATT, it was timely that I was in the United States in the last two days, both because it came immediately after the outcome of the Geneva discussions on what is effectively the mid-term review of the Uruguay round of GATT, and also because it came immediately after the completion of the price negotiations. I was able to tell my American counterpart that, through the price review, we have fully met the commitments that we have undertaken in the Geneva round of discussions. The stabilisers have been honoured. In fact, we have taken the process of reform further in some directions, and the outcome is totally consistent with our position in GATT. For that reason it was welcomed in the United States. Certainly the atmosphere this year is very different from what it was last year. I hope that we will now be able to work constructively together on the latest stages of the GATT Uruguay round.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will be aware that we have a ten-minute rule Bill after this statement and a very long list of amendments to get through before Third
960
Reading of the Social Security Bill. I ask for brief questions and for hon. Members not to repeat questions that may have been asked before.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I assure my right hon. Friend that what he has achieved, particularly in relation to MCAs and the milk co-responsibility levy, will be enormously welcomed by the agricultural community, some sections of which are extremely hard pressed at present. However, can he give some indication of the timetable he expects—I know it is difficult to predict in Common Market negotiations—in relation to the review of milk quotas and also for the final removal of the co-responsibility levy?
Mr. MacGregor: This year we have done well with the timetable, because we have reached decisions rather earlier than usual. We will be getting a review of the functioning of the milk quota system by the end of July. I will certainly be pressing for early action to follow up proposals that I hope will be made. We have a commitment to make further progress next year on the co-responsibility levy on milk, and I assure my right hon. Friend that I share his view. One of my main objectives next year will be to make much further progress on this levy; I should like it removed altogether.
Regarding my right hon. Friend's point on MCAs, I think it is worth giving relevant figures to the House, because they demonstrate the substantial progress made in removing the unfair competition elements that existed in the last two years through the MCA system for our farmers.
Let us compare the figures for February 1987 with today's figures. In crops, the negative MCAs have dropped from minus 32·8 to minus 2·6. In milk they have dropped from minus 31 to minus 1·8. In eggs and poultry they have dropped from minus 28·3 to nil. In pigmeat they have dropped from minus 27·2 to nil. In beef they have dropped from minus 24·5 to nil. We have taken a major step forward in ensuring fair competition for our farmers.
Mr. Geraint Howells: May I thank the Minister for looking after the interests of dairy and beef farmers? Can he give an assurance that, in the next round of negotiations, he will look after the interests of sheep farmers?
Having said that, I am afraid that the majority of those involved in agriculture will not consider this a very good settlement. The Minister mentioned a figure of £155 million. I am sure that he is aware that the industry now pays £800 million in basic interest rates and borrows £6,450 million, the highest amount ever. Will he give an assurance that he will do all that he can to help agriculture in its fight to put an end to the disastrous effects of high interest rates? Finally, will he tell us whether the £155 million that he mentioned is net or gross profit?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the price negotiations were about the price negotiations and not about anything else.
I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about sheepmeat. The review of the sheepmeat regime is still ahead of us: I have often told the House that I expect this to be a long and difficult negotiation, and I now believe that it will be even longer than I thought. Meanwhile, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that, as a result of decisions that we made last week, there will

961
be an improvement in the sheepmeat sector of 4·3 points in the 1989–90 marketing year as a result of the green rate changes. That is a significant improvement, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this negotiation has helped in that respect.
Finally, let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the figures. The £155 million is net for a full year, after account has been taken of the effect on feed. We calculate, however, that dairy producers' incomes will increase by another £20 million as a result of the changes in the milk co-responsibility levy.
Mr. David Curry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a co-responsibility levy is wholly incompatible with a quota system? Will he say whether all producers will pay only 1 per cent. up to the first 60,000 kg of production, or whether some will pay 1·5 per cent? Will he also pay some attention to not allowing the principle of differentiation between the small and the larger farmer to become too widespread?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall go further than my hon. Friend and say that I do not consider the co-responsibility levy system appropriate in the context of CAP reform as a whole. I think that we should be tackling it in other ways, and I am therefore eager to find any way of obtaining support for reducing and eliminating the system. We made big progress this year: for the first time, other Ministers are coming in behind the argument that I have been pushing ever since I became a member of the Council.
The first 60,000 kg in the milk co-responsibility levy is for small producers with a quota of less than that amount. Those with a quota above that will pay the full 1·5 per cent. I thought that quite hard last week; it seemed to me wrong to give preferential treatment to the small producers, of whom we tend not to have very many. It also seems wrong—I think that this is what my hon. Friend had in mind —as a general approach to CAP reform. I nearly obtained majority support but not quite, and I thought it better to settle for this now—because it was the first major step in dealing with the co-responsibility levy—knowing that we would come back to it next year.
Hon. Members representing constituencies where dairy farmers are in the less-favoured areas will find it worth noting that the LFA change—a nil co-responsibility levy—will affect some 25 per cent. of our dairy producers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister referred to the north American drought and its effect on Community prices. Does he accept that perhaps that drought has a good deal to do with the destruction of rain forests in central America and Amazonia—that is a climatologist's opinion and not mine? Will he put on the agenda of the next Council meeting the import from unsustainable sources of woods such as mahogany on which I have received frankly helpful answers from the Parliamentary Secretary? Does the Minister recognise that it is a European matter and not simply a British one?
Mr. MacGregor: As it happens, I have come to the House straight from the global climatology seminar in another place. I certainly take a very great interest in these matters and I hope that the Council will be able to discuss them. We have been discussing them informally, but I hope that we will be able to discuss formally in the Council the implications for Community agriculture and forestry, among other matters. The hon. Gentleman may know that
962
we are in the final stages of agreeing a Community forestry programme which will also be helpful. The weight of evidence and scientific opinion about the north American drought this year is that it is not yet linked to the longer-term effects. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the global climatology issues will very much affect agriculture, and need to be discussed.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: While the Minister has made the farmers very happy, does he agree that it is an abuse of the EEC pricing system to consider proposals for 36 separate green currency changes at a net cost to the Community of less than nothing, which will mean that the entire cost of the extra price will go to the consumer and less than nothing, according to the figures, to the EEC? Is it not simply an accountancy fiddle to help keep the Community's expenditure within the spending limits? Does he have any proposals to bring down the surplus production of food, which is costing taxpayers throughout Europe more than £200 million a week to dump and destroy?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend felt that the February 1988 reforms would not bite and did not have much impact, but he should recognise the progress that has already been made. One cannot change everything overnight, and it is important that we carry through internationally CAP agricultural reforms in dealing with subsidies and surpluses. I hope that my hon. Friend will notice the progress that has already been made. It is not an accountancy fiddle. The figures are quite clear; they show that, as a result of last week's negotiations, on current forecasts we will be £700 million below the ceiling in 1988 and 1·9 billion ecu below it in 1989. Those are real figures and they demonstrate the real progress that has been made. At the same time, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the green currency changes were absolutely right, because United Kingdom farmers were being disadvantaged. That is why that was one of my prime objectives in the negotiations.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister says that he cannot deal with the problem overnight, but the Government have been at it for 10 years. The Prime Minister sticks up an Agriculture Minister about once every two years and then she sacks him. We have an annual farce when the Minister tells us he has got a good deal. How much of the money will end up in farm workers' pockets? How much will end up in the pockets of the godfathers? No doubt one of these years the Minister will be telling us that they have given the Mafia a seat at the table.
Mr. MacGregor: Not for the first time, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening.
Mr. Skinner: I have.
Mr. MacGregor: In the past year, we have made considerable savings, for which I have given the figures. We have, quite rightly, improved farm incomes as a result of the green currency changes for United Kingdom farmers. That will work throughout the farming system and be of benefit to it. It has an absolutely negligible effect on consumers. The hon. Gentleman referred to other elements—
Mr. Skinner: Farm workers.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already dealt with that in saying that the measures will work through the farming system.
One of the other issues that I raised in the Council is fraud. I believe that we are now getting down to detailed proposals which will enable us to take more and more action on that front. The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree with him on that, and I hope that he will allow that we are making considerable progress.
Mr. Michael Lord: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the package and on the great effort he has made on the monetary compensatory amounts. He needs no reminding from me that few, if any, cereal farmers in East Anglia made any profits last year. Does he agree that it is important that probably the best cereal farmers in the world are allowed to make a living, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of the people they employ, who have just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? The workers' livelihoods depend on sound agriculture, just as much as those of the farmers, and the many rural industries that depend on cereal farmers for their incomes.
Mr. MacGregor: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. We are neighbours and share the same problems. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that, in our part of the world, we have had bad harvests in the past two years, which have had a considerable impact on the incomes of cereal farmers. We must hope that that does not happen a third time. There is not much doubt that I could not have achieved more this year in the price negotiations for cereal farmers. Their relative position has changed considerably.
Sugar is the other major concern that my hon. Friend probably has in mind. It is important to take into account all the factors involved, including, of course, the green pound changes; that means that returns to United Kingdom growers and beet processors will rise by about 2 per cent. after the effect on levies and the devaluation of the green pound are taken into account—even after the price reduction.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: While welcoming the green pound devaluation, I regret that it has taken 10 years to reach even this stage, and that the differentials have not yet been eliminated. How will the Minister's package measure up to the needs of an industry facing rising costs, not the least of which is the 5 per cent. interest rise of last year? I estimate that it will cost the industry at least twice as much as any improvements in this package. Are we, yet again, facing the problem of too little, too late for the industry?
Mr. MacGregor: It is not 10 years, but two years. I gave the hon. Gentleman the figures for two years ago. He will see that the monetary compensatory amounts are negligible in two sectors and that in three other sectors there is a nil MCA. That is a considerable improvement. I hope that the £155 million improvement in farm incomes negotiated as a result of this deal will be helpful to farmers. It is important to bear in mind also that we are talking about support prices. The returns to farmers could be higher than that, depending on the market. We have been discussing only the support prices themselves.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this is the news that our dairy and livestock farmers have deserved for a long time,
964
especially the news on the MCAs and the co-responsibility levy? When it comes to the review of quotas and their transfer, will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the difficulties of young farmers and new entrants to the industry?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In his second question he raises one of the major difficulties of any quota system. I have made it clear to our farming industry that, if there is a general consensus about one or two of the possibilities that might help to deal with that —the siphoning of milk quotas is one of the most obvious —I should be happy to consider them. There is no consensus at present, and it is difficult to see a way of helping some of the new entrants into dairy farming. That is, unfortunately, one of the consequences of a quota system.
Mr. Bob Cryer: While the Minister says smugly that he gest a fair deal for farmers—although he admits that there will be a price rise for the ordinary consumer—is he doing any work in the Cabinet to try to unfreeze child benefit, which was debated earlier in the week? Many consumers will be aware of the priorities he has exhibited today. Does he accept that more than £1,000 million will be spent on propping up the Common Market this year and next year—and no doubt for many years after?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether more or less than 70 per cent. of total EC income will go on the CAP, or has he not yet made that calculation? Does he accept that it is lame to come to the House after 10 years of Tory Government and discover that over £6,500 million is being cheated out of CAP funds by fraud? When is he going to do something about it and catch the crooks?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman bandies about figures without knowing what he is talking about. By definition, one cannot know the precise figures on fraud, but I am almost certain that the figures that he has quoted are way, way above what the figures are likely to be. Nevertheless, any loss of taxpayers' money through fraud is highly reprehensible; that is why I have taken the fraud issue so seriously. I have already made it clear that the effect of the review on consumers is one twentieth of 1 per cent. and it will have a negligible effect on improving the prospects of our farmers. The proportion of Community expenditure which is spent on CAP is less than 70 per cent.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can I thank my right hon. Friend for his vigorous and effective negotiating in the interest of the whole of the United Kingdom, not just one section of it? On specifics, is it not the case that the cost of the reduction in the co-responsibility levy has been met by the reduction in cost of storing surplus butter? In view of the dramatic increase in costs, including interest costs, why is it therefore necessary to reduce by 2 per cent. the support price—the intervention price—for butter?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has just said. The reason for the 2 per cent. reduction in the intervention price is that it was important that that decision was budget-neutral, and the reason for that is that, despite all the reforms that we have carried through, the dairy sector is, at the moment, still the most expensive sector in the Community and as it is still expensive, it is necessary to have a eye to costs. Nevertheless, I expect that now that we have reduced the

965
butter mountains and the skimmed milk powder mountains, our expenditure on that will work its way through the system and the dairy sector will then become less expensive than it is now.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister has already said that he expects that negotiations on the sheepmeat regime will be long and difficult, but will he assure the House that he is aware of the importance of the timing of any such changes and of the disruption and the dislocation that could be caused to the marketing year both from the uncertainty about when such changes will be introduced and about what would happen if they were introduced at the wrong time in the marketing year?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, Sir.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will do my best to call the hon. Members who have been rising, but it will depend on brief questions.
Sir Hector Monro: May I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his outstanding success over the co-responsibility levy and the green pound? Bearing in mind the uncertainty in the livestock industry, especially in hill areas, will he do everything possible this summer to ensure that an increase in the suckler cow subsidy is as high as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks on the price negotiations. I am aware of the feelings that he and others like him have about the suckler cow premium and I shall certainly make an announcement about that before 15 June, which is the deadline by which that announcement is required.
Mr. Paul Marland: This is an excellent package, and I should like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and to reassure his doubters that the money will find its way right through the system, be it to the farm workers or to the bank managers. I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the co-responsibility levy on dairy produce but having negated that, will he turn his attention to the cereals co-responsibility levy which has encouraged cereals farmers to produce more rather than less, and which is the most worthless tax that there has ever been?
Mr. MacGregor: I totally share my hon. Friend's views about the cereals co-responsibility levy. I have been repeating such remarks ad nauseam in the Council since we have had the co-responsibility levy. I did it again this year, and we achieved one improvement, in that the Commission is now committed to looking at the administration of the cereals co-responsibility levy. I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to build on that.
It was clear this year that, for the first time, we were getting growing support for our attacks on the milk co-responsibility levy. It seemed right to build on that and to secure results on that this year, not least because it means that the Council has now committed itself to phasing out one of the co-responsibility levies. The Council has now begun to recognise the principal arguments against the principle of the co-responsibility levy.
Mr. Ralph Howell: My right hon. Friend will agree that producers, particularly the hard-pressed cereals producers, will want to know what
966
effect this will have on prices for the coming year. Can he give a forecast of what he expects the price increase will be? While I am glad to hear him restating his opposition to the co-responsibility levy, may I ask him to explain how that squares with his support for stabilising penalties?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that it is not possible at this stage to predict what market prices will be this year because, being market prices, they will depend on a whole range of market factors. But the fact that MCAs now on cereals in this country are minus 2·6 per cent., compared with minus 32 per cent. only two years ago, is a major contribution that this price review has made, in addition to the improvement in crop support prices as a result of the green rate changes.
As for his question about stabilisers, my hon. Friend and I have had battles on that issue in the past. It is essential for the future stability of our cereal farmers that we get on top of the surpluses and ensure that the cereals sector does not absorb ever-rising amounts of taxpayers' expenditure. That is the point of the stabiliser. I believe that the mechanism of the stabiliser on support prices was the right way to tackle it and that it should not have been encumbered by a co-responsibility levy as well. That is why I am endeavouring to get rid of that.
Mr. Jimmy Hood rose—
Mr. David Harris rose—
Mr. Tony Banksrose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harris.
Mr. Banks: Fair do's.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would call hon. Members who had been rising, not those who have suddenly decided to put a question.
Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Scottish Question Time, when Scottish Members complained about English Tory Members being called—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Gentleman rising before I said that I would call hon. Members who had previously been rising?
Mr. Hood: I was putting a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Gentleman rising previously? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. Was the hon. Gentleman rising previously?
Mr. Hood: No, I was not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will, as I said, call those who were rising.
Mr. Hood: I agree that I was not rising, Mr. Speaker, but—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend be not deflected from the excellent work that he is now doing by the unholy alliance in this House represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Will he carry on in the reforming way in which he has approached these matters? Will he accept congratulations, given the squeeze on farm incomes, for the extra £155 million that our

967
farmers will gain from this settlement, and in particular for the pending abolition of the co-responsibility levy on milk, which will mean a tremendous amount to milk producers in the south-west of England?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right about the important step that has been taken in the Council for many south-west of England dairy farmers. For many of them in the less-favoured areas there will be no co-responsibility levy on milk from now on. That is an important step forward and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments—[Interruption.] I am sure that the whole of agriculture will have noticed the frivolity with which Opposition Members treat these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the frivolity on the Opposition Back Benches, compared with the serious approach and questions that have been asked by my hon. Friends.
Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your protection. Is it right for the Minister, from the Dispatch Box, to accuse me of frivolity when I am only exercising my democratic right to ask him a question?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was here earlier and heard what I said.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: What is the anticipated impact of green pound devaluation on the competitive basis of United Kingdom producers in relation to EC producers, and why has the marketing year been changed?
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to say that, as a result of action even earlier than these price negotiations, we managed to secure a nil MCA in the pigmeat sector, so that it is now in a fair and competitive situation. The change in the marketing year is a sensible move designed to bring it into line with the starting date of the marketing year for the cereals sector, given that cereals play a prominent part in the costs of the pigmeat sector in terms of feed costs and so on.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of farmers in my area for his sterling work on the green pound in particular and on the co-responsibility levy? Will he continue to bear in mind the problems of young milk producers such as my constituent, Mr. Derek Lomax?
Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I recognise the problems and discuss them often with the farming community. There is a general recognition in the farming community of the problem and an acceptance that this is one of the inevitable penalties of a quota system. On the other hand, there are divided views on how it should be tackled. At every meeting that I have been to, when I have tried to see if there was a majority view, it was difficult to find one. Siphoning offers the best prospect but, as my hon. Friend will know, many in the farming community are not in favour of that.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I too should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his considerable achievements in pushing the British argument in Europe. May I now exhort my right hon. Friend to use his considerable powers of persuasion to influence his colleagues in Europe to phase out intervention, which is
968
carried on at horrific cost, which is wide open to abuse and which is of doubtful benefit to producers or the customers they serve? Undoubtedly, the money could be used to much better effect if it was channelled more directly to farmers.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should try to bring intervention back to its original objective as an ultimate safety net and not as an alternative market outlet. We are making progress, because two modest further steps towards that end were taken this year, in relation to the intervention period and the monthly increments.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend's achievements will be particularly appreciated by Pembrokeshire beef and dairy farmers, whose income has been depressed in recent years. Will my right hon. Friend do one further thing for them? Will he continue to press for an increase in the 90-steer headage limit, which would be greatly appreciated?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, we had a major battle on that last year, culminating in the Agriculture Council in January. I managed to negotiate the steer headage limit up from the original proposal, which was well below the limit of 90 that we eventually achieved. I will obviously come back to the charge on this, but it is one area where I am in a minority, not quite of one but nearly, so it will be a major battle to get any improvement.
Mr. Charles Wardle: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tenacity at the negotiating table? When he begins the important review of the milk quota system, will he put the transferability of quotas high on the agenda? Bearing in mind the effects of last year's drought on world prices, has not enough been saved in export subsidies to abolish the irrelevant milk co-responsibility levy altogether in 1991?
Mr. MacGregor: I am working to get the milk co-responsibility levy abolished. Ideally, I should like to see that happen next year; certainly I hope that we shall make progress on it next year. On transferability, I have been arguing for some time that we need greater flexibility. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have already told the Commission that I hope that it will come forward with proposals on that in the study to which it is now committed.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Kenneth Hind rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Tony Banks: He has been called already.
Mr. Hind: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the package that he has negotiated, which will be welcomed very much by west Lancashire farmers. In the light of the fact that the British farmer will have a greater competitive edge than in the past, will my right hon. Friend be very vigilant in looking for hidden subsidies that are developed by foreign farmers and producers, particularly as we have seen in relation to gas for the Dutch tomato industry? It appears that the Dutch potato processing industry is benefiting in the same way.
Mr. MacGregor: We are always vigilant in pursuing any issues where it looks as though there are unfair state aids. I have to put the emphasis on "unfair" because some aids are permitted within the system and we make use of them ourselves. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are vigilant where there is evidence of unfair aid. We take that up with the Commission because the prime responsibility for dealing with it lies with the Commission.
Mr. Richard Holt: I offer my congratulations and those of dairy farmers in my constituency to my right hon. Friend. In sorting out the insecurity of the future, will my right hon. Friend's Department hurry up in making a decision about green-top milk? Many of the dairy farmers in my constituency who are involved in this area—who wonder why people are allowed to buy cigarettes and possibly catch cancer—will have nothing to do in future if green-top milk is not available.
Mr. MacGregor: Without going into the issues today, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have been receiving responses to our consultation document. We shall be assessing those responses carefully and in due course we shall make a statement about our position.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take one question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to represent the consumer, in the place of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).
Mr. Tony Banks: You are a toff, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Secretary of State that what the farmers of Newham want to know is, how many of his right hon. and hon. Friends sitting behind him have personally benefited from what he has been able to negotiate? Does he not think that in future it would be far better if Conservative Members declared an interest before they asked a question?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the farmers of Newham would tell the hon. Gentleman that I am the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and not the Secretary of State.
Mr. Banks: Do not worry: you will make it.
Mr. MacGregor: That indicates how deeply involved the hon. Gentleman is in these matters.
I am certain that the farmers of Newham would applaud the fact that we have done a greal deal this year to put the United Kingdom farmer on a completely competitive basis. I should have thought that the whole House and the whole country would welcome that.

Points of Order
4.37 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point of Table Office practice rather than "Erskine May"? A malicious habit has grown up among Ministers—one in particular—of claiming that she or he has answered questions when, in fact, no answer has been given. Yesterday, I had oral Question 92, which, alas, was not reached. It asked the Prime Minister whether Sir Leon Brittan cleared with No. 10 Downing street—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was not reached. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask it now.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not what you might expect, Mr. Speaker; it is rather different. The Prime Minister claimed that she had answered many times on this subject, but she had not. She could not have.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order for me in that? I am not accountable for the answers that are given to questions.
Mr. Dalyell: The point of order concerns a matter of Table Office practice and why the Table Office refuses questions that ask Ministers for specific references as to where they have answered questions that they claim to have answered. It is a matter for the Table Office. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, cannot make decisions now, but would you reflect on the matter for 24 hours and ask the Table Office and colleagues what should be done about references which have been properly asked for by parliamentary Questions?
Mr. Speaker: I will reflect.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before I give my point of order, may I thank you for calling me a second time on the statement? Obviously, my first question was not very memorable.
Could you confirm that hon. Members who wish to ask questions about statements, such as the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), should be present to hear the statement?
Mr. Speaker: Let us not start a debate, but listen to what I say about the matter from the Chair.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you ensure that the record of Hansard shows that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to Opposition Back-Bench questions as frivolous? As one of them was a question from me about the serious fraud and cheating that is going on in the CAP, it is important that people outside should know that the Minister does not take a serious attitude towards that important subject.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably know that, over a period, a group of us on the Opposition Back Benches have complained in the proper quarter about the fact that we cannot hear properly because the acoustics of the chamber is not good. Very understandably, it was put to us that little could be done about it. However, the whole thing is made worse when Ministers, especially junior Ministers, pirouette—they talk not to the House, but turn round. Today was a prize example. It is foolish of them to behave in that way. Can we get an instruction to Ministers, especially junior Ministers, not to pretend that they are playing, for example, David Lloyd George?
Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of the problem with the acoustics. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to something which I already know about. The microphones have recently been replaced. Ministers should speak into them, and the whole House would then hear.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for

971
Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) represents a distinguished agricultural constituency and has had a horse named after him, unlike Conservative Members. He was present during the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Even if my hon. Friend did not rise to speak, the hon. Member for Pembroke should withdraw his slur on him.
Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman was present and I am sorry that I could not call him. We have a very busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: For the benefit of Conservative Members, I have a constituency covering 1,000 square miles with a major agricultural—[Interruption.] I know more about the problems of farmers.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been rising, I would have called him.

Early-Day Motions
4.46 pm
Mr. Dobson: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you said that you would consider points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about early-day motions. I wonder whether you have had the opportunity to consider them yet.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I have now completed my consideration of the matter the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised, but I do not consider that I need to make any definitive statement, since I made my general position clear yesterday in dealing with points of order. I can only repeat that a motion must be capable of debate and not just an attempt, in whatever form, to write statements or outside speeches, documents, or summaries of them, into
972
the House's records. No doubt the Table Office will refer to me any motions which appear to offend against those criteria and I will then make my decision in the ordinary way as to whether they can be allowed to appear on the Notice Paper.
I remind hon. Members that, where a draft motion is disallowed, it is not in order to refer to it in the Chamber on a point of order, in the same way that disallowed questions may not be referred to in those circumstances.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 12 MAY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes

Mr. Tom Clarke

Mr. Robert Boscawen

BILLS PRESENTED
  LICENSING AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Jimmy Hood, supported by Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. James Wallace, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. George Galloway and Dr. John Reid, presented a Bill to make provision for the control and authorisation of sales from off-sale premises of alcoholic liquor: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 May and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
  REQUIREMENTS OF WRITING (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Allan Stewart, supported by Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith and Mr. Bill Walker, presented a Bill to reform the law of Scotland with regard to the requirement of writing for certain matters and the formal validity of contractual and other documents and presumptions relating thereto; to abolish any rule of law restricting the proof of any matter to writ or oath and to abolish the procedure of reference to oath; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 May and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

Waste Recycling (Paper)
4.48 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the collection and recycling of waste paper.
Every year 90 million trees are chopped down to cater for Britain's demands for paper and board. Apart from the huge bill to import 90 per cent. of that raw material, it is estimated that 25 per cent. of the paper recycled in Britain is also imported. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for providing figures for 1988 produced by the Department of Trade and Industry today which show that the import bill for paper and paperboard was more than £3 billion, the import bill for pulp was £716 million, and the import bill for recycled waste paper—used copies of the New York Times and the Washington Post, perhaps—was £9 million.
The percentage recycled is due to rise further when two new paper mills designed to use waste paper for the production of newspapers come into use. At the moment, less than 20 per cent. of domestic and commercial newspaper waste is recycled. If we are to cut the import bill significantly and keep those new mills operating on domestic recycled paper alone, the figure will have to increase to more than 40 per cent.
My Bill places a statutory duty on local authorities to draw up an approved scheme for recycling waste paper in their area. It also makes it compulsory for paper and board products to indicate on them whether or not they contain a specific percentage of recycled paper. Many local authorities, such as my own, the Wyre borough in Lancashire, already operate schemes. I want more and better schemes to be brought forward to enable the paper manufacturing industry to use ever increasing amounts of recycled paper from domestic and commercial sources in this country.
My Bill deals with the demand for recycled paper, as well as how it is collected in the first place. It is up to individuals, businesses and the public sector to create the demand for recycled paper. My Bill is designed to encourage them to do so. I also hope that other Government Departments will follow the lead of the Department of the Environment and start to use recycled paper. I have written to all Secretaries of State asking if their Departments will follow the example of the Department of the Environment. Closer to home, I hope that hon. Members will soon be communicating with their constituents on recycled paper. I shall shortly be in touch with the appropriate authorities to see how best that can be achieved. Within the Palace of Westminster, we produce a considerable amount of waste paper, as can be seen by a visit after lunch to the Library, where the wastepaper bins are full of waste paper which could be re-used.
I hope that businesses, particularly newspaper offices, which consume a considerable amount of newspaper and general paper products, will also consider using recycled
974
paper. Some newspapers, though not all, are already printed on recycled paper. I hope that in future all will be. It is particularly important that paper products which are used only once, such as cleaning cloths and newspapers, which have a relatively short life, are made from recycled material. It is a great waste for such products to be produced from raw pulp.
It is also important that the demand for lower grade recycled paper should be increased, because most recycled material falls into that category. There is not yet a sufficient demand for lower grades of recycled paper to deal with the supply that is undoubtedly available. Germany and the United States have had quite sophisticated collection procedures for waste paper for some years. Unfortunately, those have not worked as well as they should, simply because the demand for the end products has not been there. One reason for the glut of waste paper in the United States and the fact that it is exported to this country is that there is not sufficient demand for the products that can be produced from it.
In presenting the Bill I hope that members of the Press Gallery will not report these proceedings in an over-lengthy fashion. I hope that they will not resort to the device—recently employed by a well-known Sunday newspaper which says that it is environmentally conscious—of printing a special weekday edition to publicise a particular subject.
This Bill, like the Unleaded Petrol (Engine Adjustment) Bill that I introduced under the same procedure last year, focuses on a particular area of environmental improvement—in this case, the minimisation of waste. That strikes a sympathetic chord in a great many people in this country. In the past, we have been described as a nation of hoarders—until recently we tended to frown on our American cousins, who were depicted as throwing everything away—and the general public are sympathetic to the idea of recycling items that have already been used.
Waste minimisation must be a central theme of any responsible policy towards the environment because it encourages the prudent use of the world's natural resources, while polluting the environment as little as possible. By collecting and using recycled waste paper we cut our energy needs, we preserve the world's forests and we encourage a tidier Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. James Paice, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. David Nicholson and Mr. Hugo Summerson.

Waste Recycling (Paper)
  WASTE RECYCLING (PAPER)
  Mr. Keith Mans accordingly presented a Bill to promote the collection and recycling of waste paper; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
Orders of the Day
  Social Security Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Social Security Bill
    Clause 7

      UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: REQUIREMENT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT ACTIVELY
      4.53 pm
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 1, leave out clause 7.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 109, page 5, line 5 at end insert—
      '(2A) A claimant may show that he is actually seeking employment under subsection (1) above if he is working in a voluntary capacity in order to further skills and experience for future employment.'.
      No. 14, in page 5, line 28 at end insert—
      '(2C) if on a day for which benefit might fall to be payable, a person is a volunteer, then the Benefit Officer shall regard the voluntary work undertaken as evidence tending to show that the person is available for and actively seeking work.
      (2D) A person shall be deemed to be available for and actively seeking work if that person provides continuous care and support as a volunteer to another person under an agreement with

      (a) the other person;

      (b) a public authority; or

      (c) a voluntary organisation.

      (2E) For the purposes of (2D) above, "voluntary organisation" means a body which is not a public body but whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit.'.
      Mrs. Beckett: The amendment seeks to delete Clause 7. I propose to confine my remarks to our amendment and not to discuss the other two with which it is grouped—not because I do not sympathise with the motives of those who tabled the other amendments, but because they cover issues that we discussed in Committee and I want to talk about clause 7 as a whole rather than seek to amend it.
      The amendment seeks to delete the clause because it is not merely objectionable and profoundly damaging: it is unnecessary. It paves the way for the infliction of considerable and direct distress which we believe will follow the passage of this legislation. That distress will be caused and exacerbated by the fact that the proposals in the clause are rooted in the collective gut instinct of the Government and their Back Benchers that the unemployed are responsible for their unemployment—that they caused it, that they could end it fairly easily if only they really tried, and that their unemployment, rather than being a symbol of society failing them, is a symbol somehow of their success at exploiting others.
      That gut instinct in Conservative Members has triumphantly survived all the evidence to the contrary and even the most glaring and obvious gulf between the number of people seeking work and the number of jobs available to them. Today, some Conservative Members may well go through the form—I expect that the Minister will—of denying that in their heart of hearts they think that all the unemployed are workshy, but even those who make that denial drift with amazing speed away from the
      976
      formal assurances that only a tiny minority need the spur of the Bill towards discussing that tiny minority as if they constituted all the unemployed. I do not recall the Secretary of State for Social Security or the Secretary of State for Employment stressing in their speeches trailing this legislation at the Conservative party conference that only a tiny minority might be abusing the system.
      I should make it crystal clear, so that no one will have any excuse for asking spurious questions, that my hon. Friends and I believe that people who have to be available for work—and who do not suffer from some disabling illness or whose family responsibilities do not keep them away from work—and who are drawing benefit should be looking for work. That is what the law says; it has stood unamended for 60 years; we have always supported it, and we do today.
      We do not accept, however, that the law needs to be substantially amended and tightened as the clause suggests. We differ from some Conservative Members, because although we accept the framework of the law as it stands we are concerned about the way in which it may be exploited in its day-to-day administration to harry people off the unemployment register with no serious attempt being made to address the fact that they cannot find suitable work. Nevertheless, our amendment deals with the framework of the law, not with the use that is being made of it.
      If the Government's argument is that the law is being broken or exploited, the answer is to enforce it and to use the remedies provided in it—which, heaven knows, are savage enough—not to introduce new and unneeded concepts.
      Although we believe that the present law can potentially be misused, we are quite certain that the use —never mind the misuse—of the new law that the Government propose has enormous potential for causing untold misery and humiliation for those who are or become unemployed.
      There cannot be the slightest doubt that this clause offers the opportunity for such humiliation. We believe that it might happen even if it is unintended. In the best possible case, if an unemployed person is looking for work and that work is available and not difficult to find, irritation and perhaps even distress will be caused because the provision will be unnecessary. It will be seen as a bureaucratic nuisance—an interference and a diversion from the serious business of finding another job. For those for whom the prospects of the search for work are not a matter of minor disturbance but of major difficulty, the clause will have a more seriously damaging effect. It requires that the unemployed person should provide on a week-to-week basis an account of all the steps he has taken in each week to look for work. That was made quite clear in Committee. It will not be enough to apply for, say, 17 jobs in one week and to do nothing in the following week. The whole point of the clause is that the search should be a continuing one, not that it should be averaged out over a period.
      The Minister of State even made it explicit in Committee that an unemployed person who has the opportunity to benefit from a family holiday—perhaps arranged by one of the charitable organisations—will not be excused from continuing his job search in that week or weeks, and that failure on return from holiday to convince the local office that the job search had continued, could lead to the withdrawal of all rights of benefit.
      Ms. Clare Short: I am sure my hon. Friend also remembers that the Minister said that anyone attending a funeral away from his home would be expected to prove that he was actively seeking work while attending the funeral.
      Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that the Minister could not agree that even such circumstances should exclude people from job search.
      What primarily concerns us is the harm that this unnecessary proposal may inflict particularly on three groups— those who are, for whatever reason, long-term unemployed; those who suffer from a sickness or disability which is not only distressing in itself, but handicaps their search for work; and the young homeless, who will have special difficulty combining the search for work with the search for a roof over their heads and who, for that reason, may be particularly unacceptable to employers.
      In these debates Conservative Back Benchers have tended to raise a series of ridiculous objections which we have had to knock down. We recognise that the technique of keeping and discussing a log of job search activity and methods may have some value for some people, whose main problem is not the lack of available work or an inherent mismatch between their skills and capacity and the jobs on offer, but some hitherto unrecognised defect in the methods and approach of job search. No doubt those are the kind of people who are helped by a job club.
      But Ministers know perfectly well that many assiduous attenders and participants at job clubs do not find work because the difficulties that they face cannot be resolved just by correcting their search techniques and are entirely outside their power to resolve—difficulties such as there just not being enough jobs or their not being offered the jobs that there are.
      5 pm
      Those are the people for whom being compelled to keep a log, to reveal its contents, to discuss it—no matter how sympathetic the hearer—means, by definition, a compulsion to chart, record, justify, explain and apologise for failure. That must be so, by definition, because the people who succeed will not have to do it any more.
      The Government know, as we know, that not just hundreds but hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, will be charting failure, because, in spite of anecdotal evidence about jobs here or there or somebody whose friend had a job on offer for which no one applied, the overwhelming evidence is that, on the Government's own figures, there remain at least 2 million to 3 million people for whom there is no work. Even if the number of vacancies and unemployed people could ever be brought to match, they will never match in terms of skills, abilities and capacity.
      We ask the Government just this once to think again; to use their imagination. By the law of averages, some Conservative Members must have some. The long-term unemployed already live—in many cases with great difficulty—with the fact that our society regards them as failures. They already live with the fact—most with great difficulty—that many of their fellow citizens tacitly or openly blame them for their condition, especially those who have never been unemployed and imagine that it is easy to do something about.
      The people who care for the mental health and stability of the unemployed have long sought to advise them not to
      978
      give up, not to drop out, but to do their best to adjust to their circumstances in ways that allow them to maintain their self-confidence and their self-regard because, apart from anything else, that is likely to increase their chance of finding a job in the circumstances in the town in which they find themselves or in one where they can realistically look for work. Under clause 7 they will be forced up against their defects or their lack of success, but in any event their failure, week after week after week.
      That will also apply to the already more evidently vulnerable—the army of those with some disability whom the Department's doctors in their wisdom have ruled to be fit for light work, sometimes in the face of strenuous opposition from the person's own general practitioner. Some are already being caused distress by being put through the restart process because often there is no light work available and even more often, employers are unwilling to hire them for that light work if it exists. Like others now required to be available for work, in future those people, too, will have to prove what steps they have taken every week, week in, week out, on holiday or not on holiday, to search for that light work.
      Let me remind the House that for all those affected by this legislation, the fact that they have to be available for work does not necessarily mean that they are getting any money. They may be signing on only to maintain their pension credits. Some may have worked for 30 or 35 years but still not have enough credits to satisfy the long period of contributions or credits required to qualify for a full pension. If they are ruled not to be actively seeking work, they will lose those credits and perhaps their right to a full pension, even though they may have spent what most of us would consider a full working life in employment arid become injured or sick or made redundant towards the end of that working life. Are even this Government prepared to make that group jump through hoops to satisfy the prejudice of the ignorant and the comfortable who tend to call the unemployed "these people"?
      What I have described is the law as it will be unless the House carries the amendment. The Minister says that matters will not be as bad as that in practice, not because that is not what the law says but because it will be sympathetically administered. It might be, and then again it might not be. Recent social security legislation is riddled with examples of cases where Ministers have assured us that in practice there will not be any problem, but that turns out not to be quite the case.
      But in this case the problem is that the rigidity is in the law. It is on the face of the Bill. The Bill says that the test, abolished as long ago as 1930 because of its harshness and injustice, should be applied every week on a week by week basis.
      Now that unemployment benefit is paid in arrears, those ruled not to be actively seeking work will lose their benefit for the two weeks at the end of which the judgment is being made. The chances must be extremely high that they will not be able to satisfy whoever has ruled them not to be actively seeking work that they are now actively seeking work for at least another two weeks. The chances are high that anyone who falls foul of the test will lost all right to benefit and possibly all source of income for, at the minimum, a month.
      The clause is savage in its potential, it will be savage in its effects and it will lead inexorably to harassment and persecution of some whose only fault is that they cannot

      979
      get work. I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for the amendment and for the removal of the clause.
      Mr. John Hannam: I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in calling for the removal of clause 7. I want to speak to amendment No. 14 in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Members of the all-party disablement group. The amendment seeks to take account of the special situation facing people who work as volunteers in our society.
      We talk a lot these days about care in the community policies and we are all anxious that the Government should soon bring forward their decisions on the Griffiths report, the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. But regardless of those factors, we have to recognise that during recent years of high unemployment the Government have actively encouraged unemployed people to become active citizens through community care work.
      The voluntary organisations on which we rely for a great deal of our social provision have become heavily involved in using unemployed volunteers in community care. Organisations such as the Spastics Society, Age Concern, MIND and Mencap run everything from local befriending schemes to specialist day centres with volunteers who are expected and trained to develop close relations with those for whom they care and to develop a special trust with the persons cared for.
      There are some 370 volunteer bureaux in the United Kingdom, recruiting about 110,000 new volunteers every year. Their average age is 29, and about 60 per cent. are women. Between one quarter and one third of the population take part in some kind of regular voluntary work.
      Unemployed people are a significant proportion of volunteers and among the most active and energetic. They are used in all the caring professions from advice work through citizens advice bureaux, housing aid centres and law centres through to community care agencies, working with elderly people, people with disabilities, mental illness and mental handicap and homeless people and ex-offenders.
      Hospitals, homes for children and old people, conservation work and many worthwhile environmental projects make up a pattern for which Britain is unique. They rely largely on voluntary help.
      At present, under the existing system, volunteers face a number of difficulties in claiming benefits to which they are entitled, and because benefit officers have a great deal of discretion in deciding on the position of a volunteer, there are many inconsistencies of practice across the country. My amendment has the backing of all the voluntary organisations and seeks to provide the necessary clarity and uniformity of practice.
      Clause 7 provides that unemployed persons will have to show that they are actively seeking work, and I do not dissent from that principle. But if the clause is not amended there may be serious problems for a great many volunteers. Benefit officers may, in many cases, conclude from the fact that a person is volunteering that he is not actively seeking work—a misunderstanding which has
      980
      been common under the present system. Volunteers who are actively seeking work, but whose voluntary work involves caring for people with whom they must build up trust and commitment, surely cannot be expected to break off that trust and commitment within 24 hours. They must be given longer notice, both to protect the disabled or other persons being looked after, and to give sufficient time for the various local authority and voluntary organisations to arrange for other volunteers to come forward to ensure continuous care.
      Disabled people form a strong and supportive personal relationship with their volunteer carers. These are mutually beneficial. Crucially, these personal elements of care depend on a relationship of trust, care and familiarity, built up over a period. If a volunteer is forced to break off that relationship at 24 hours' notice, emotional and practical difficulties for the disabled person will be created. The voluntary caring organisations—the Spastics Society, Mencap and so on—will not have sufficient time to arrange cover by another carer. Our amendment would ensure that this special relationship was protected from the effects of benefit requirements designed to address a totally different problem.
      It would also ensure that the special position of volunteers and volunteering was recognised, within the benefit system, as an important way into the job market. Volunteering is an important form of training by which skills are acquired and a person made more employable. Many people who have taken on volunteer roles have moved on into professional caring jobs, having gained the necessary skills in their volunteering relationships with disabled and other people.
      I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security is right in his promotion of community care and active citizenship, but it would be sad indeed if one of the unintended consequences of this legislation were the disruption of the supporting relationships built up in the community. That would, of course, be another push to the already spiralling residential care budget.
      There are precedents for recognising the contribution of volunteering. Social security regulations of 1983 allow those involved in emergency services to be counted as actively seeking work. The proposed subsections (2C) and (2D) in amendment No. 14 simply seek to extend this recognition to an equaly important area of volunteering, where people are similarly concerned with the life and death of others unable to assist themselves. The proposed subsection (2C) states:
      "if on a day for which benefit might fall to be payable, a person is a volunteer, then the Benefit Officer shall regard the voluntary work undertaken as evidence tending to show that the person is available for and actively seeking work."
      I do not believe that I am going against the grain of Government policy with this amendment. Indeed, I believe that I am correcting an oversight. I know that my hon. Friend values the work of the internationally and nationally respcted organisations that have asked for it, and I hope, therefore, that he will give us some encouragement when he replies.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened very carefully to the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). The thrust of his amendment certainly does not go against the grain of Government policy. Similarly, amendment No. 109, which is part of this group, seeks to move with the grain of Government policy. Its purpose is to allow claimants to

      981
      show that they are seeking employment under subsection (1) if they are working in a voluntary capacity in order to further skills and experience for future employment. That seemed to be the nub of the argument by the hon. Member for Exeter, and it is the thrust of the brief remarks that I want to make.
      Related matters were given some consideration in the Standing Committee. I wonder whether the Minister of State has had time to give further consideration to, and to develop, Government thinking in this direction. Problems could be solved, and benefits accrue, from these amendments. I certainly support the purpose of amendment No. 1—the lead amendment in this group—for reasons that I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee. The thrust of clauses 7, 8 and 9 is wrong-headed, and I remain unconvinced that they are necessary at all. However, I accept that the Government have set their face against any attempt to withdraw those clauses, so the best course that the House can adopt is to seek to amend them positively. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter and the amendment in my name both seek to do that in a constructive way.
      5.15 pm
      The new provisions will certainly have an effect on voluntary organisations and charitable organisations, which do very good work—a point that is of crucial importance. But perhaps even more important is the effect of the new legislation on the people who will be unable to continue to claim unemployment benefit, people who in the past were doing voluntary work. I am particularly concerned about people with disabilities. They are in a "Catch 22" situation. Although attempts are being made to encourage employers to take on quotas of people with disabilities, those people are in a very difficult situation in the employment market.
      Many disabled people can make a very positive contribution to society as a whole in terms of the organisations with which they work as volunteers, but they also benefit in terms of the personal development that they can achieve and the confidence that they can re-establish by serving in a useful capacity with organisations such as we in our constituencies know so well. Such people are in a vicious circle. Voluntary work gives disabled people an opportunity to acquire office skills, computer skills, and so on. It gives confidence and provides material for a practical curriculum vitae that can be shown to prospective employers. Paying unemployment benefit to volunteers like that constitutes an investment, and is not a subsidy for any sort of easy life.
      The only other point that I want to make is that the long-term unemployed, too, could be helped very substantially if the Government were to accept these amendments. Anybody who has been unemployed for a long time loses confidence. That is clear to any hon. Member who has constituents in this situation. The air of defeat with which some people come to see me actually depresses me. If such people could be provided with constructive and helpful positions as volunteers while claiming unemployment benefit, they could be kept much more mentally alert. Very often they would be in the right place at the right time when job opportunities came along. Their voluntary work would show future employers that they were determined to get out and about and to try to
      982
      improve their situation. It would keep their skills ticking over, and make possible the development of new skills if old ones had atrophied.
      For all these reasons, the scheme that is proposed in these amendments, which seek to mitigate the effect of the new regime, are commendable. The opportunities are easily to hand to set up such as system. I am led to believe that the voluntary bureaux have worked out what I am fairly satisfied is a reasonably workable scheme. The Minister of State must not hide behind the difficulties of bureaucracy. That argument will not wash at all. The opportunity is readily to hand. There is no reason for resisting these amendments—certainly not on ideological or political grounds. They would provide substantial benefit to a significant number of people, and would go a long way to mitigating some of the disastrous effects that I suspect clauses 7, 8 and 9 may have if they are introduced unamended. I support the amendments in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter, and I hope that the Minister will give them very careful consideration.
      Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) painted a picture of the economy in London that one does not recognise. She talked about the shortage of job opportunities. Just before coming to the House, I went out and bought a copy of the Evening Standard. I counted a total of 15 pages of job opportunity advertisements.
      Ms. Short: Does that mean that there is a job for everybody?
      Mr. Marshall: It means that, if one considers the number of registered unemployed and the number of job vacancies notified to jobcentres in London, and if one then applies the usual quotient, it becomes clear that there are many jobs available in London for those registered as unemployed. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) knows that a large number of jobs, particularly in the south-east, are not even notified to jobcentres because of the difficulty of filling them. For every vacancy notified to a London jobcentre there are probably three or four more waiting to be filled. One can say that in London there are about 100,000 vacancies available for people to fill.
      Mr. John Battle: In the borough of Croydon, which includes the constituency of the Secretary of State for Social Security, there were in January 8,000 unemployed chasing 1,000 vacancies. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how all those people can obtain employment when there are insufficient jobs available? That pattern does not match the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, even in London.
      Mr. Marshall: There is a strict convention. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that right hon. and hon. Members do not speak about the constituencies of other right hon. and hon.. Members. I am sure that Mr. Speaker would not expect me to talk about his constituency.
      Mr. Battle: He probably has the same problem in his constituency.
      Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) refers to 1,000 vacancies notified to Croydon jobcentres, but he knows full well that for every notified vacancy, there are three or four unnotified jobs available. The hon. Gentleman knows also that London is a

      983
      travel-to-work area, so that people living in Croydon do not have to work in Croydon but can work somewhere else. Because of London's wide travel-to-work area, a whole host of jobs are available to Croydon residents—both in Croydon itself and outside it.
      When I visited the Golders Green jobcentre in my constituency, I was told that about 800 vacancies were on offer, but great difficulty was experienced in filling many of them—mainly because people are unwilling to accept them because the salaries offered do not compare favourably with unemployment benefit, However, some people do those jobs at those salaries, and they pay taxes. Why should they pay taxes to provide unemployment benefit to people who refuse to undertake those same jobs? Opposition Members do not understand the anger that the situation creates among those in work.
      Ms. Short: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman really understands what he has just said. He claims that some people refuse jobs because they would be financially worse off by comparison with the unemployment benefit they receive. He is saying, then, that people should accept jobs that will give them a lower income than they have from unemployment benefit. Does he really mean that? Are there to be no minimum employment standards in this country?
      Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Lady listens to my remarks, or if she reads them in Hansard tomorrow, she will learn that, not for the first time, she has distorted the remarks of a Conservative Member. No one is saying that people should receive less income in work than they might receive in benefits. We introduced family credit to ensure that families in work are not worse off than families out of work. The hon. Lady seeks to distort our true intentions. Our belief is that it is wrong that people who refuse work should automatically receive unemployment benefit, which is a view taken by the vast majority of the British people.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I support all the amendments in the first group because they would allow the useful development of people undertaking voluntary work. Many Conservative Members, including the Minister, want to see more of that because they support voluntary effort in society. That is why a Conservative Member has tabled an amendment. I hope that the Minister accepts that voluntary work should be taken as evidence of a person's determination to seek employment.
      I support the wholesale opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to the noxious new clause giving the Secretary of State power to introduce regulations. When the Department introduces regulations, they are generally of an oppressive and complicated nature, hurt the poorest most and erode the civil liberties of those in the worst position in society.
      I am not in favour of the Minister for Social Security having any additional regulating powers. All the cuts implemented after 11 April 1988 were introduced by regulatory powers. Large chunks of oppressive legislation afflicting the poorest of the poor were introduced by the Minister with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that he is a fit or proper person to legislate for anyone. I am not in favour of him. I recall the years when
      984
      he pretended to be a liberal in the Tory party, and how he sacrificed those pretensions to crawl after the Prime Minister for position.
      Mr. Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.
      Mr. Cryer: I shall certainly not withdraw one dot or comma of what I have just said. The Minister is a particular object of my contempt for taking the position of being on the wet side of the Tory party but then, like a number of Tory party wets, caving in at the flick of an eyebrow by the Prime Minister. If anyone wants me to make the position absolutely clear, I shall be delighted to do so.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I entirely agree with his remarks. During the progress of the Bill last year which took away benefits from many young people, I pleaded with the Minister for a special dispensation for groups which he now admits are in dire need and sinking into homelessness and despair, but the Minister could not give a guarantee then that he would help them. I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said about the Minister for Social Security.
      Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has detailed knowledge of the exchanges that took place in Committee on that occasion.
      The regulating powers available to the House are far from satisfactory. I am concerned about giving more time to primary legislation on the Floor of the House. If the Government were to withdraw the water privatisation Bill, for example, the House would have an opportunity to deal with more primary legislation, which is what it should be.
      The availability for work test is an example of tried and tested legislation which has stood the test of time. When stories of benefits abuse arise, they are published mostly in the tabloid press and have little substance. I recall a press campaign during the last Labour Government's period of office, when they were accused of being soft on the unemployed and allowing benefits abuse. The evidence produced—which was supported, of course, by The Sun —was found to be almost wholly without substance. Of about 700 cases investigated, often arising from anonymous reports about neighbours, only four were found to have genuine substance, and were in any event already being investigated by the DHSS.
      5.30 pm
      One of the Government's faults is that they cannot leave anything alone. Because of their doctrinaire beliefs, they have to tamper with everything, and that doctrinaire belief is generally about attacking those who are most vulnerable. Labour Members accept the approach to availability for work that civil servants are used to administering. People applying for benefits also understand it. But now the position is to be changed and civil servants and applicants will have to make a new assessment of the position. New difficulties will be created, and any judgment to be made will be on the side of the Government, with the result that more people will be refused unemployment benefit. Guidelines will be issued by the Minister to supplement the delegated powers and will almost certainly instruct civil servants, in cases where a judgment has to be made, to decide against the applicant.

      985
      In discussions that I have had while canvassing over the years, people of previous generations have told me that they do not want to go back to the practices of the 1920s and 1930s, when the means test humiliated people genuinely seeking work. Labour Members canvassing in the last two elections often heard it said that the Prime Minister was taking us back to the 1920s and 1930s. Some of us thought that people who had had a hard time during the inter-war period might have been feeling that the situation in recent times was a rehash of the earlier experience and might perhaps be exaggerating slightly, but we were wrong because the Prime Minister is clearly taking us back to the 1920s and 1930s, when people were subjected to harrowing scrutiny and humiliation. That will be the effect on society of clause 7 of the Bill. That provision is a further attack on the unemployed.
      The Government claim that the number of unemployed is falling, although it has not yet fallen to the number in 1979 when the Conservatives came to office. Conservative Members are always making comparisons with the situation under the Labour Government, but they have a long way to go to achieve an unemployment level as low as in 1979. It would be interesting to hear when the Government expect that figure to be reached. In the meantime, the unemployed are suffering under the legislation affecting them. Provisions protecting people against unfair dismissal have been diminished. The rights of an employer have been enhanced so that a person who is dismissed faces the possibility of an extended period without unemployment benefit. Industrial tribunals relating to unfair dismissals have had their jurisdiction removed or diminished.
      All this is part of a general pattern to attack the unemployed. I have no doubt that, like all Labour Members, Members representing smaller parties have constituents who tell them that many of the jobs advertised are for skilled engineers and the like, so a person who has been a labourer all his life is unlikely to get one. People genuinely seeking work often despair at not being able to find a job. One of my own offspring applied for several jobs over a period of many weeks and was in despair when he was unsuccessful. Although it was for a relatively short period that he was unable to find a job—fortunately, he subsequently found a position—he showed the despair that people feel at the continued indifference of many employers to applications for work.
      It will be difficult to clarify what is involved in a test of whether a person is actively seeking work. It will be extremely difficult to verify people's intentions. Will they have to show that they have written letters seeking employment? Will it thus be incumbent on them to make sure that they keep a carbon copy or take a photocopy of all their applications? Will they have to produce bus tickets to show that they visited places of employment to apply for jobs? If their application is refused, will they have to get a letter to that effect so as to continue receiving unemployment benefit?
      Because of the great sea of legislation which already exists, people face the task of filling in a large number of forms in scrupulous detail to satisfy the Minister's civil servants and obtain benefits—a situation rather different from what people in the City seem to be able to get away with in relation to share applications, and so on. It is difficult to determine how much evidence people will need to produce under clause 7 in support of their applications
      986
      for benefit. This will impose yet another burden on ordinary people who have already been rejected inasmuch as they are unemployed.
      Recently I had an interview with a man who was made redundant two years ago. As he was 58 years old, he wondered what hope he had of getting a job. The Minister may say that changes are afoot which will mean older people being called back to work, but that does not apply now. In Bradford, the Tory-controlled council is actually creating redundancies by sacking people and forcing them on to the dole. Indeed, one of the Government's proud boasts is about the way in which they have got rid of civil servants. A further instance of unemployment being created is the closure of the shipyard at Wearside. The Government have no proud record of creating and sustaining jobs in the public sector, but rather the reverse.
      Unemployment is still a serious social problem, with 2 million people on the dole. Many thousands of people have been put out of work by the reduction in manufacturing activity—a total of 2 million since 1979. Under this Government all those people still walking the stones have a shadow over their shoulders of yet more bureaucratic interference and form-filling. They will have to produce more proof of their efforts to find work and satisfy more civil servants to obtain unemployment benefit.
      If the Minister wishes to redeem himself in my eyes and those of other Labour Members, he must accept at least one of the amendments—preferably amendment No. 1—to show that he has some sympathy for the unemployed. He needs to show that he accepts their collective word when they tell him that they are genuinely seeking work because 99·9 per cent. of those people are desperately looking for work, want work, and are critical of a Government who seem unable to produce an economy that will provide it.
      Mr. Burns: I hope that the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will forgive me if I do not take up the points he made, except to say that I do not believe the Bill, including clause 7, is an attack on the unemployed. If the amendment to clause 7, which is the centre of the Bill, were passed, it would completely emasculate the authority of the legislation by withdrawing from it the requirement actively to seek work in order to receive unemployment benefit. I see no reason why there should not be a clause requiring people actively to seek work in order to qualify for the benefit.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that only a small minority in this country claim the benefit, are not working, do not want to work and would try to duck any job one gave them. However, we must not blow this fact up out of all proportion. The vast majority of people who are out of work want to work and are looking for jobs. The news that the unemployment figures are falling is certainly welcome, but it does not alter the fact that many people desperately want work.
      I believe, however, that it is the duty of Government, of whatever party, to ensure that the money paid to people who are out of work goes to those who really want to work but cannot find a job, rather than to the small minority who have no intention of working and are on the benefits register simply because they see it as an easier alternative.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) sighs; but there are such cases. I am sure that, when they were canvassing for the last general election, hon. Members

      987
      heard the odd person—not loads of people of course—say, "Why should I work? I get x pounds a week in benefit, and if I were working I would probably not get as much as that." The Government have a duty to protect the taxpayer—and those in work—against such people. There is no reason whatever for an able-bodied person enjoying good health not to seek a job.
      At present, just under 2 million people are unemployed, and there are between 600,000 and 700,000 vacancies. In Chelmsford, my constituency, 1,841 people are out of work and there are more than 700 vacancies. I believe that some of those vacancies could and should be filled. Companies in my constituency, such as Marconi Communications and the English Electric Valve Company, find it very difficult to get people to work for them. That is not because they are bad employers; they are certainly not that. It is because some people who are out of work could be working.
      Mr. Battle: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us what house prices and rents are like in his constituency, near those factories? Might not the fact that people do not take up such job opportunities have something to do with the fact that they cannot afford to move their families from the north to the south?
      Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentlemen has a very valid point. The Housing Act, when it is in full operation, will help to create a right to let, and will build up the rented accommodation market. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if, having asked a question, the hon. Gentleman would listen to the reply before catcalling. I was not saying that people should come down from the north, because what he says is absolutely right: people do not want to come down to Chelmsford to work, particularly those in the north who are on lower incomes, because of the level of house prices. I was making the point that people already living in Chelmsford could take up work in companies that are suffering from a serious labour shortage.
      A report published last year on the London labour market provides compelling evidence that thousands of jobs are available in the Greater London area for those who are out of work in that area, but they are not being taken up. I believe that clause 7 will encourage more people to take up such jobs. People who are genuinely and actively seeking work should have no worries, because they are already doing what the Bill, when enacted, will ensure that everyone does. If they are unsuccessful in their attempts to find jobs, they will receive the benefit to which they are entitled.
      I shall oppose amendment No. I and support the Government. Bringing into benefit regulations a provision requiring that a person is actively seeking work is, in my view, long overdue.
      Mr. Bill Michie: I should like to discuss the whole clause rather than the amendments, which are clearly of some importance and value.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, south (Mrs Beckett) that the clause paves the way for more and more misery to be inflicted on people who are already experiencing poverty, dilemma and much else. It will make such people responsible for their own dilemma. Those of us who represent areas of high unemployment know very well that most, if not all, of those who are out of work are
      988
      out of work not because of their own actions but because of the Government's economic strategy—a strategy designed not just to put people out of work, but to destroy the strength of the trade union movement and make it subject to the will of Government. That is all part of the Tory philosophy, and has been for some time.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Burns: How can the hon. Gentleman blame the Government for all the people who are still out of work in Dundee as a result of the Transport and General Workers Union fiasco?
      Mr. Michie: I do not wish to educate the hon. Gentleman. If he knew anything about industrial strategy and trade union politics, he would also know that it is necessary to plan for the future rather than living for the day. Protection of jobs and of the union is essential to the future of working people—although that, of course, is not something that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see.
      Instead of using so much valuable time in trying to find a way to save a few bob at the expense of the poor, the Government should use legislation and powers to create real jobs and stop hounding people who are not unemployed for their own ends. Many of those people will be permanently on trial, week after week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has already pointed out. We are returning to the bad old days; in fact, things are worse. We put a stop to this kind of legislation years ago because it was too harsh, but we now see that the present Government's legislation is harder than some of the bad laws that were scrapped a long time ago.
      In most cases, the difficulties experienced by claimants actively seeking work will not be a good enough reason to qualify for benefit. It will be difficult for a claimant to prove that he could not make it for one reason or another, and he could lose at least a month's benefit. Moreover, people with disabilities which are not always recognised will find it hard to prove that they are actively seeking work, if suitable work is available.
      The same applies to those who are caring for the sick or the disabled. One of the amendments makes the point that the more someone tries to help others the more likely he is to jeopardise his chance of drawing benefit. I should have thought that that would be entirely against the Government's philosophy, but perhaps nothing is sacred in today's Tory-rotten world.
      The people whom the Government intend to penalise are not lazy; most are helping others in a voluntary capacity—working hard for nothing at all. The fact is that suitable jobs are not there, despite what the Government say. Work opportunities in many areas are very scarce. Someone could have a full-time job applying for jobs that do not exist. I wonder whether a full-time job trying to find that elusive post of real consequence and of a reasonable standard would qualify a person for benefit.
      The Government do not seem to understand the plight of many unemployed people. In many cases, there may not be a job opportunity in the area. That may not seem much of a problem to hon. Members on £24,000 a year plus expenses, who can get into a taxi whenever they like. Sometimes, apparently, they get on to tube trains and talk to members of the proletariat, but they do not do that very often. Hon. Members can all travel first-class on the train.
      However, we are talking about unemployed people who do not have the money to apply for jobs in other areas.

      989
      What will happen if a single parent sees a poorly paid job four or five miles away? Can she afford to take it? Can she afford the hours away from her family or sick relative? Should she apply for the job knowing very well that she cannot take it, but if she does not apply for the job will she be penalised? We asked those questions time and again in Committee.
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We discussed the matter in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman must know that a lone parent with children under 16 is not required to be actively seeking work. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Michie: I did not catch that comical note.
      Mr. Scott: I said that the hon. Gentleman must understand that a lone parent with children under 16 is exempted from that provision precisely because she is a lone parent.
      Mr. Michie: I take the Minister's point.
      Mrs. Beckett: In view of the Secretary of State's remarks about single parents being dependent on the State, when the Minister replies to the debate, will he tell us how long that happy circumstance might obtain? It is clear from my hon. Friend's remarks that many single parents wish to seek work and are trying to be active in the labour market but face these difficulties.
      Mr. Michie: We discussed in Committee problems such as travelling to work and expenses, and I made that point that a four-mile journey in London is very different from a four-mile journey in Yorkshire or Derbyshire. The rules will apply throughout the country and will not change because people live in different areas, so, while I accept the Minister's point, I hope that he will realise that the Government have provided no help whatsoever for those people.
      The Government have fallen for their own propaganda that there are plenty of jobs. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) does not appear to understand the implications of the Bill. Because of the scrapping of the wages councils and protection against low pay, ultimately people will have to apply for extremely low-paid jobs and face the dilemma that they cannot afford to take the jobs but will be penalised by the DSS if they do not apply for them. The Government gave us no comfort in Committee to the effect that they would take that into consideration.
      Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who might take the jobs to which he has referred would all he eligible for family credit, which would increase their incomes significantly?
      Mr. Michie: I did not realise that the Government were so generous. I have written to the Minister about one or two cases of family credit, and I look forward to receiving his reply.
      We have received no assurance that people who cannot afford to apply for jobs in certain areas will receive any help. I am afraid that the Government will have to come back in a year's time. They will not apologise for having made a mistake, but they will have the brilliant idea of helping some of those people to move.
      Mr. Battle: Perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the Minister to apologise now. I am sure that the Minister
      990
      would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. If a single person is claiming income support, the availability for work test will not apply, but if someone is claiming unemployment benefit, the test will apply. That should be made clear. I would not like the impression that the Minister was misleading the House to go further than the Chamber.
      Mr. Michie: I am sure that the Minister will put the record straight somewhere at the end of his winding-up speech if he has enough time.
      The people that we are trying to defend are the victims of a rotten system. They are unemployed through no fault of their own, yet they will carry the burden of guilt and will continually have to prove their innocence week after week. They are not scroungers or lazy, but simply finding it difficult to find work, but many of them will not have the opportunity to prove their case.
      Clause 7 is a very bad clause designed by a powerful Government to bash the most vulnerable people. It is time that the Government used time and legislation to help those people instead of bashing them. They could start by scrapping clause 7, and if they want to be unnaturally generous to people in need, they should scrap the entire Bill.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate as I was unavoidably detained.
      I have an interest in clause 7 because I am a trustee of Community Service Volunteers and have been interested in the voluntary sector for a long time. It is clear that the Minister understands that the nature of unemployment varies considerably from person to person. Even in places such as my constituency, where there is no shortage of employment, a substantial proportion of those who are unemployed are psychologically incapable of taking a job, or even applying satisfactorily for employment. One of the most helpful ways of enabling those people to recover confidence and social skills is giving them the opportunity to work as a part-time or full-time volunteer with a voluntary organisation which is skilled and experienced at bringing the best out of such young people.
      One example is the information bubble in Waterloo station which is manned by volunteers who have been given the job by Community Service Volunteers. Their task is relatively simple but becomes increasingly complex as the volunteers provide information about a wide variety of events in London, train timetables and so on, and t gives many people who have become socially isolated the chance to recover their self-confidence. Many of those young people have gone on to find perfectly satisfactory employment. The people who carry out that task vary enormously between people with advanced degrees to those who can barely read and write but are taught the job and manage to cope very satisfactorily.
      Those people volunteer for two reasons—because they want company and support and because they know that such work is a way back into the employment market. I believe that they should be deemed to be actively seeking work because they are preparing themselves for work, and because the organisation for which they are working is perfectly willing to be quizzed about the people it employs in a voluntary capacity. That is particularly important, because some of those people could easily obtain a job as a street sweeper or another pretty solitary activity in many

      991
      parts of the country. But that could exacerbate the psychological isolation which those people—who are usually, but not always, young people—experience and render them unemployable in the medium and long term because eventually they will crack up and be unable to continue.
      It is essential that amendment No. 14, or a similar amendment, be accepted. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has already said that he sees no serious difficulty in creating a system whereby the voluntary organisation set aside one day or half a day a week during which the individual would be expected to apply for jobs. It would be wrong for people engaged in voluntary activity under the auspices of a properly organised and caring organisation to be deemed not to be seeking work.
      6 pm
      Ms. Short: My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that we were now getting to the guts of the Bill and the reason why it was introduced. That point was confirmed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). This is not a social security Bill, but an employment Bill. Its origins are in the Department of Employment and it seeks to further the Government's strategy of reorganising our labour market, which they have been working out for a considerable- time. That reorganisation involves positively encouraging low-paid employment in our economy and lowering the protections and security in employment of workers. It has been, sadly and disastrously for many people and for the efficiency of the economy, an enormously successful strategy.
      We now have 2 million more low-paid workers than in 1979 and, disgracefully and shockingly, 49 per cent. of people in employment are now low paid on the measure set down by the Council of Europe, which is the equivalent of £132 for a full working week. Clause 7 is intended to take that process further and to force more people to take even lower-paid and worse employment. Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete clause 7, but it is impossible to understand the purpose of clause 7 without considering clause 9.
      Clause 7 will require those who become unemployed to prove, on a weekly basis, that they are actively seeking work. If they do not, they will be threatened with the loss of benefit for six months. Clause 9 removes any minimum conditions about the jobs offered, so people will be forced to take the jobs that remain vacant in jobcentres—in areas of high and low unemployment—because the pay and conditions are so disgraceful. People will be forced into those jobs. As employers realise that, the unemployed will be used as a battering ram to erode standards of employment. That is clearly the long-term strategy of the Government and the Bill will make the position much worse.
      The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) did not intend, I am sure, to mislead the House, but he was wrong when he said that it was not the purpose of Conservatives to force people to take jobs that pay less than their benefits. The Opposition moved an amendment on that in Committee, but it was turned down by the Government and the hon. Gentleman did not vote for it; he supported the Government. Let everyone be clear that
      992
      under the Bill, people will be forced to accept employment that pays less than the level of benefit to which they are currently entitled. That is what the hon. Gentleman voted for in Committee, but he may have forgotten.
      We know that the Conservative Whips do not allow Conservative Members to contribute in Committee, but that does not mean that the hon. Member for Chelmsford might not have learnt a little from the debate. He said that, in Chelmsford, there were 700 vacancies and 1,800 people unemployed. Obviously, he has not learnt what we tried to explain to him—that vacancies do not wait for ever for the unemployed to fill them. There is an enormous turnover. If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the jobcentre, he will find that of those 700 vacancies, most have been there for a short time and that the overwhelming majority have been taken by people already in employment who are seeking improved conditions.
      The chances are enormously high that many of the 1,800 people cannot apply for the 700 vacancies because they do not have the necessary skills. If there are highly skilled job vacancies that cannot be filled in Chelmsford, that is the fault of local employers for not supplying adequate training so that the jobs can be filled.
      Mr. Burns: The two companies that I mentioned in Committee are bending over backwards to take on unskilled workers and are more than prepared to train them, so that they can learn the necessary skills. They realise that it is difficult to find skilled workers in the area. English Electric Valve had over 200 vacancies last year that it could not fill. As a good employer, it is more than prepared to train unskilled people to fill jobs, yet it still has difficulty in filling them.
      Ms. Short: The next time I visit Chelmsford, I shall call into the jobcentre. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I attend to these matters in some detail. I visit jobcentres and study the labour market. Chelmsford is not an island. Unless it is quite different from the rest of the country, the description of the likely employment market I have given will apply to Chelmsford.
      To hear Conservative Members speak, one would think that we did not already have benefit conditions that have been enormously tightened in recent years. People have to be available for work to obtain unemployment benefit, and the tests are rigorously applied. As a result of the Government's strategy which I have already explained, and because of the prejudices among Conservative Members, many new provisions have been introduced in recent years. When people first become unemployed they have to fill in a questionnaire of 22 questions as part of the availability for work test. Under the restart scheme, the unemployed are called in every six months and receive a letter saying that their benefits will be stopped unless they come for an interview. Before that interview, they have to fill in a questionnaire of 17 questions. Many of the unemployed take places in job clubs or on one-week restart courses after going through that frightening process.
      Research shows that the majority of the unemployed believed that the schemes were compulsory and that if they had not accepted places on them, they would have lost their benefits. The unemployed are harassed now and are frightened into schemes that lead them nowhere. The unemployed want jobs and we all want them to have jobs and good training, but the Government are so obsessed

      993
      with reorganising the labour market and cutting wages that the schemes seek to lower wage expectations rather than give skills that enhance the employability of the individual and the competitiveness of our economy.
      The only purpose of this change is that matters should become worse and the conditions tougher. Anyone who is close to unemployed people who go through the restart scheme knows how much fear there is already. In Committee, we gave many examples of people who were frightened and harassed by the process, including examples of many older workers who had worked from 14 to 50-odd and had been laid off in the great recession induced by the Tory Government when they came to power in 1979. They are harassed under the restart scheme and will be humiliated under the processes in the Bill.
      I am especially concerned about unemployed people who seek to study under the 21-hour rule. People who do that are worthy of great admiration. They have the experience of being unemployed and of having to manage on little money, but they have the motivation to find a place at college and to take courses that enhance their employability and learning. The Government have already wiped out that opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds. About 30,000 of them used to use the opportunity to acquire 0 and A-levels. I know constituents who went on to become graduates through that difficult route. Now about 300,000 older workers will be affected. I do not know the precise figures, because one cannot obtain them from the Department of Employment.
      In Committee, the Minister said that he was sympathetic to that point. I pushed him for an assurance and he asked me not to push him further. I shall push him now because we want an assurance. It will be intolerable if people who seek to study while on benefits are prevented from doing so and forced into schemes such as employment training, which lead them into crass employment experiences and not into decent prospects of a job and enhanced employability. It is no good the Minister saying that social security does not exist so that people can be educated and trained. Employment training, the Government's main scheme for unemployed people, consists of people training while on social security benefits. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us serious assurances that the regulations will explicitly provide that people who are studying under the 21-hour rule are allowed to continue to study despite the tighter regulations that are being introduced.
      I add my support to the amendments that have been tabled to protect voluntary workers. The Bill presents a real danger that people who do voluntary work will be found not to he actively seeking work and that they will be penalised and lose their benefit because they sought to help their community when they were unemployed.
      Taking up voluntary work can be an enormously successful strategy for getting a job. When people go to agencies in areas of high unemployment to seek advice about how they might get employment, they are constantly advised to look for voluntary work in the area in which they are interested because that will give them confidence and experience and when openings occur, they will get jobs. Many people have found employment in that way. If the Minister does not make some such provision, not only will much of the care that is provided to our communities be destroyed, but a valuable route into employment will also be destroyed.
      994
      This is a foul Bill and clauses 7 and 9 are an outrage. They will mean that lots of our people will be harassed and humiliated as happened in the 1930s. That is not an exaggeration because the parallels are close. The Bill will also mean that more and more of our people will be low paid. Low pay is not only bad for individuals—it is no use the Government talking about family credit, because only those with dependent children are eligible for family credit and many people without dependent children could be forced into a job that pays less than their benefit—but is enormously bad for the economy. It leads to a high turnover of labour, low investment and poor training. Britain will have no future as an economy that rests on low pay. However, more and more the Government's strategy is to restructure our economy in that way. That is bad for individuals and the future of the economy. Clauses 7 and 9 will make everything much worse for a lot of people.
      The Chancellor and the Government talk about inducing a recession in our economy to deal with the problem of inflation and they hope that we will have a soft rather than a hard landing. That means that there will be another—and inevitable—increase in unemployment. Harsher conditions will be imposed, when it is inevitable that unemployment will start to increase again. I am afraid that that is the future we face.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise to colleagues for having missed a quarter of an hour in i:he middle of the debate when I was in Committee upstairs, however, I am glad, even at this late stage, to be involved in the debates on this Social Security Bill, because I was involved with the preceeding two Bills and I was sorry to miss the Committee stage of this Bill.
      I want to address my remarks not only to amendment No. 14 which has been tabled in my name, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and which is supported by the all-party disablement group, but also to the basic amendment, amendment No. I, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I support both, if that is not mutually exclusive.
      I refer first to the position of volunteers. I have close contacts with the Spastics Society and with Mencap and am very much aware of the important role played by volunteers in such disablement groups. We must ensure that in its final form the Bill cannot be interpreted—much is open to interpretation—by people who do not fully appreciate that significance in such a way as to reduce the number of volunteers available or to lean on them to move in other directions.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) spoke of the enriching experience of being a volunteer and of the help that it gives in finding other work. Both those points are true. When the Minister replies to the points that have been made about volunteers, I hope that he will give an assurance not just that they ca .n continue to be volunteers but that they will have to show that they are still actively looking for work because that could be a "Catch 22" for volunteers. If one is actively looking for work, that cuts across one's voluntary work, which would not be a satisfactory outcome. It would be better to have the wording suggested in amendments Nos. 109 or 14 to try to overcome that.

      995
      6.15 pm
      I accept that amendment No. 14 may need to be tightened and that we may need definitions of the voluntary organisations. I can see difficulties, in that people might be able to create a voluntary organisation and one person might be able to become a voluntary organisation and "employ" an unemployed person as a volunteer. Given that the wording may need to be tightened, I hope that the Government will not rest their case just on the fact that, of course, people can continue to be volunteers but they must also show that they are actively looking for work because that would not be anything like satisfactory.
      I turn now to clause 7. The area that I represent is extremely scattered. There are 93 villages in my constituency and some people may live 15 or 20 miles from their unemployment benefit office. If the expectation is that people will go to the office regularly to show that they are actively involved in seeking work, significant costs could arise. Indeed, trying to go to interviews or to knock on doors asking for a job also involves costs. People may live 10 miles from their nearest possible employer, there may well be no bus service and transport could be difficult. Many unemployed people will not have cars of their own because of their financial circumstances.
      The question then arises, is writing a letter enough? It may be—I do not know. Other hon. Members who are present may also have received the letter that I received the other day from a young person in a hostel in Grimsby. It had clearly been written to more than one Member of Parliament and I know that another colleague has received the same letter. It was a one-liner, asking, "Have you got a job for me?" One's first instinct was, "What on earth does this guy think he is doing?" The second instinct, of course, was to give priority to that letter above a lot of others and to give a fairly substantive answer to explain why one does not. However, I wonder whether a one-line letter like that meets the requirements. If that is the case and we are to have an industry of turning out, cyclostyle, "Have you got a job for me?" letters, all that we are requiring to meet the provisions of the Bill is the cost of a stamp per week to show that one is seeking work.
      That raises another problem, to which hon. Members have already referred, about employers' reactions. There is nothing more dismal or soul-destroying for somebody who takes the trouble to write a letter—not just a one-liner, but a substantive letter trying to get a job—than not even to receive an acknowledgement from the employer. I know that that happens far too often. If we are to tighten the system in the way that the Government want, there is a tremendous responsibility on employers to reply in substance to every letter they get. That should be the other side of the coin of these provisions. When people take the trouble to write such letters, a reply should be sent to them which can then be shown to any authorities that may want to see the evidence.
      I welcome the part of the Government's provisions that will remove the disbarment of seasonal workers from receiving unemployment benefit after their third year of seasonal work. Where those rules are introduced, I hope that such workers will not be hit by the impossibility of finding work out of season or of finding even a job opportunity to which they could apply out of season.
      996
      Unemployment in the Lleyn peninsula in my constituency reaches a high of 25 per cent. in winter but can come down to 10 per cent. in mid-summer. The difficulty is that people will need to prove, in mid-winter, that they are actively looking for work—that is, at the very time that no work is available. Therefore, we must ensure that we are not just changing the excuse for not paying unemployment benefit to those people who most certainly would like to work if work is available.
      The hon. Member for Ladywood referred to the level of pay. There is a danger that people will be forced into working at low levels of pay. That danger could be significant. The other side of the coin to the tightening of the rules should be a move towards a national minimum wage policy. If people are driven to take work at a low level of remuneration because otherwise they would lose their benefit, vulnerable people may be exploited.
      It seems clear from the evidence available to me that those who will have the greatest difficulty in showing that they are actively seeking work are those in the 50-plus group who have got into an almighty unemployment rut through no fault of their own, but because they have been caught by the recession, by structural changes that have taken place in industry and by the decline of many older industries; young people who do not have experience of life and who do not know how to go about obtaining work; and disabled people. For those three categories of people I am fearful about the effect of the Bill.
      Inevitably, there will always be some who are working the system for their own benefit, but the overwhelming majority of people are not doing that. There are now possibly more people working the system than were doing so 10 or 15 years ago; they are in the habit of being unemployed because of unemployment—they are in a vicious spiral—and I favour any policy that helps them get back into work. But such help must mean the provision of dignified work, with people being helped and trained for work and not having the threat of being without a livelihood if they do not obey the letter of what is, as it stands, a rather unclear law.
      I do not suppose that the Government will accept the amendment and delete clause 7, although I should support it if it were taken to a Division. I hope that between now and the Bill appearing in another place they will give careful thought to the points that hon. Members have made. I hope also that, when the Minister replies tonight, he will answer the questions that we have asked and will deal with the points that have been made about amendment No. 14 concerning volunteers, an issue of significance to many organisations.
      Mr. Scott: It was common ground in Committee that unemployed people should have to seek employment rather than adopt a totally passive state. The case made at that stage by some hon. Members was that the present availability rules were sufficient to achieve that common goal and that the use of the phrase "actively seeking work" was unnecessary. I believe that the case is proved in the opposite direction.
      We know—my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) spelled this out—that more jobs are becoming available. But present legislation does not make it clear that unemployed claimants must go after those jobs. Some assert that it does, but I believe that the

      997
      commissioners' decisions add up to a substantive case that it does not. People are required to be available for work, and that will remain the situation under the 1975 Act.
      The decision of the commissioner in R(U)5/80, which was often quoted in Committee, says that availability must be more than a simple passive state—a claimant must take some active step to draw attention to his availability. As I said in Committee, a series of decisions since then by the commissioners—authoritative decisions, although unreported—have made it clear that when someone declares that he is available for employment and backs that up by taking some simple step, such as attending a jobcentre, that is enough.
      The case that arose in Committee was of a person who simply turned up at a jobcentre, did not leave any name, address or contact and was judged to have done enough under the existing arrangements. A claimant today would not have to do more than that; he would not have to examine openings, look in the newspapers, inquire of friends or contact employers to satisfy the availability for work condition.
      Ms. Short: I am sure that the Minister does not wish to misrepresent the position. The present position is that if a person's availability is called into question, he must prove that he is actively seeking work and produce evidence to that effect.
      Mr. Scott: It can be judged—even if a person has not taken those steps—that having been available, he can continue to he entitled to benefit. The commissioners have decided that. They have decided that those who have been available in the most passive way are entitled to continue to receive benefit. It is common ground, particularly when unemployment is falling rapidly and more jobs are being created, that we should be motivating, encouraging and persuading people to take advantage of the country's increased prosperity.
      The clause is not a vehicle for harassing unemployed people. It is a way of encouraging them to get back into work. As I said in Committee, repeating what I said on Second Reading, only a tiny minority of the unemployed could be described as workshy or trying to work the system. As we know—as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said today and as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said more than once in Committee —there is a minority of that sort. But the rest of unemployed people, particularly in an improving unemployment situation, need encouragement to seek out the increasing number of vacancies that are becoming available. So I do not resile from the broad thrust of what we are trying to do in the clause.
      I promised in Committee to look sympathetically at the question of holidays. I have now agreed with the Secretary of State for Employment that in regulations we shall have power to deem that for up to two weeks in any 12-month period a holiday can be taken, and people will be deemed to be actively seeking work during those two weeks. I hope that that will be accepted as a sensible solution to that issue.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) again returned to the point she raised in Committee about people attending funerals and not being able to satisfy the condition of actively seeking work during the day or two they were away. As we have changed the test from being a daily test of availability to a weekly test of
      998
      actively seeking work, there is no reason why somebody should not attend—as it might be in the hon. Lady's case, across the water—for a few days, and for the rest of the week be able to take sufficient steps to show that he or she was actively seeking work.
      The hon. Lady also raised the question of studying, and my remarks on that will, in a sense, have an impact on my comments about volunteering. I accept that if someone is taking a course of study, that person is, simply by doing that, helping to improve his or her eventual possibility of getting back into employment. That should be taken into account, but I do not believe that simply because a person is engaged in part-time study, he or she should be exempt from any requirement to take steps actively to seek work. The fact that a person is studying should be part of the pattern that is taken into account when a judgment is made about the totality of the effort that is being made to get back into employment.
      In Committee we discussed the sort of steps we would expect people to take to show that they were actively seeking work—following up advertisements in newspapers and visiting employers and so on. The steps that they would take would, of course, vary according to the type of employment that they were seeking.
      There are some types of employment where turning up on the site and offering one's services would be appropriate. There are others where a properly prepared CV, sent to a number of employers, would be more appropriate to show that one was actively seeking work. Our intention is that the system should respond in a flexible and sympathetic way to the differing needs of people in showing whether they are seeking work.
      In essence—this will sound familiar to those who were members of the Committee—there is a contract between the state and unemployed people. As a Government, we should be trying to run the economy in such a way that more jobs are created. If people are unemployed through no fault of their own, they should, for the relevant period, be entitled to unemployment benefit.
      There should be a state service providing advice about vacancies and guidance to people on how they can get back into work. But the other side of that contract—which is that people should be prepared to take active steps to find their way back into employment—should not be ignored. That is the essence of the contract, and in my view it is sensible and proper.
      I am keen on people using their time to study, and I am also keen that individuals should make good use of their time when they are unemployed, and there can be few things more beneficial than caring or otherwise using one's time in a voluntary capacity. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I have had close contact in the past with Community Service Volunteers and I know that the work done by volunteers is immensely valuable to society in general. Those in voluntary work are improving their prospects of gaining employment in the longer run, and that is what clause 7 is all about.
      I hope that I can persuade the House that the amendments, which are well intentioned and with which I have sympathy, are not necessary, as we already intend to make special provision for the treatment of voluntary work. The hon. Member for Caernarfon recognised that there are technical defects in both amendments. I shall not rest my case simply on the technical defects. I am anxious to persuade my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who put their names to the amendments that I recognise that

      999
      some charitable organisations depend heavily on the use of unemployed people as volunteers. The work that they do is commendable, important and of benefit to the individuals as well as to society, but I do not believe that the fact that they are doing voluntary work should mean that they should be exempted from the need to take steps actively to get themselves back into paid employment. That would be wrong.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Rowe: I want to be absolutely clear. If someone wishes to start a career in residential work, looking after the elderly, and if he is told that he should work first for six months as a volunteer, is my hon. Friend saying that that would still not be regarded as seeking work?
      Mr. Scott: I cannot accept that the purpose of unemployment benefit is to provide for and sustain such activity. The purpose of unemployment benefit is to insulate people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. I will provide in regulations that when a decision is taken about whether someone is actively seeking work, the fact that the person is engaged in voluntary work should be one factor to be weighed in the balance. But, just as anyone doing voluntary work at present has to be available for work to qualify for unemployment benefit, that person will have to take steps —in most cases fewer steps than someone not doing voluntary work—to show that he has been actively seeking work.
      I do not believe that it would be impossible for people to take additional steps, such as writing letters in the evening, telephoning employers and so on, to satisfy the system that they are still actively seeking work while carrying out voluntary activities. I shall make sure that that is provided for in regulations so that the adjudicating authorities can take proper account of it. That is the right balance. The very fact that it will be accounted for specifically in regulations means that it will be impossible for adjudicating officers not to take account of it. In those circumstances I hope that those who put their names to the amendments will agree not to press them. As I have said, they are in any case, technically not accurate. If they are pressed, I shall have to ask the House to reject them.
      As was clear in Committee, there is a fundamental division between the two sides of the House on clause 7. I do not think that further argument will resolve that division. I suspect that the only way to resolve it will be in the Lobby.
      Mrs. Beckett: It has been an interesting debate. We remain of the view that the clause is as unnecessary as it is harsh. The issues raised on the various amendments about, for example, the impact of the clause on the possibility of study or voluntary work, show how harsh it might be. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment have agreed that if a person takes two weeks' holiday he can be deemed to be actively seeking work in that period, but it shows paradoxically how tight the provision is when that has to be accounted for specifically in the legislation.
      We have concentrated primarily on the provisions of the law rather than on its administration. In a sense the Minister sought to justify the law by saying that its
      1000
      administration can be flexible and sympathetic. That is possible. Equally it is possible that the reverse will be the case. The law itself is draconian. The clause will place enormous discretion in the hands of fairly junior officers who may use the denial of the right to benefit to penalise people who come before them if they judge differently from the Minister, in general terms, the value or the justice of people being able to study or to do voluntary work while unemployed.
      What the Minister said to his hon. Friends about the value of voluntary work was revealing. It is generally recognised in the House and outside that people who have no choice about joblessness have tried to turn that joblessness to good use by taking such opportunities as arise to study, to do voluntary work and so on, in the hope usually of improving their capacity later to find work. The message from the Minister to his hon. Friends about their amendment on voluntary work is in effect that that permission, as it were, is being withdrawn. The Minister said that he will cover that position in regulations, but the thrust of what the Government are saying is that the recognition of the powerlessness of many jobless people is being withdrawn and that they should spend their time, however fruitlessly, with however little point and to whatever effect, just looking for work. That is why we wish to delete clause 7.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 306.

      Division No. 177]

      [6.36 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dixon, Don

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Dobson, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Doran, Frank

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Battle, John

      Eadie, Alexander

      Beckett, Margaret

      Eastham, Ken

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fatchett, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Blunkett, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

      Flannery, Martin

      Bradley, Keith

      Flynn, Paul

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Derek

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foulkes, George

      Buchan, Norman

      Fraser, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Caborn, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      George, Bruce

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Clay, Bob

      Graham, Thomas

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Corbett, Robin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hardy, Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Crowther, Stan

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Cryer, Bob

      Henderson, Doug

      Cummings, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Home Robertson, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hood, Jimmy

      Darling, Alistair

      Howells, Geraint

      1001

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Parry, Robert

      Hoyle, Doug

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Radice, Giles

      Illsley, Eric

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Ingram, Adam

      Reid, Dr John

      Janner, Greville

      Richardson, Jo

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Robertson, George

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rogers, Allan

      Kennedy, Charles

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kilfedder, James

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Salmond, Alex

      Lamond, James

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Leighton, Ron

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lewis, Terry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Livingstone, Ken

      Short, Clare

      Livsey, Richard

      Sillars, Jim

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      McAIMon, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      McKelvey, William

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McLeish, Henry

      Stott, Roger

      Maclennan, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Madden, Max

      Straw, Jack

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Marek, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Vaz, Keith

      Martlew, Eric

      Wall, Pat

      Maxton, John

      Wallace, James

      Meacher, Michael

      Walley, Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Michael, Alun

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Winnick, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Worthington, Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Murphy, Paul

      Nellist, Dave

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      O'Brien, William

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      O'Neill, Martin

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Alexander, Richard

      Boswell, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Allason, Rupert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Amess, David

      Bowis, John

      Amos, Alan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Ashby, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bright, Graham

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

      Baldry, Tony

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Bellingham, Henry

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Bendall, Vivian

      Burns, Simon

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Burt, Alistair

      Benyon, W.

      Butcher, John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Butler, Chris

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Butterfill, John

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Carrington, Matthew

      1002

      Carttiss, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cash, William

      Hill, James

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hind, Kenneth

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Holt, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howard, Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Couchman, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Cran, James

      Irving, Charles

      Critchley, Julian

      Jack, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Janman, Tim

      Curry, David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Devlin, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dicks, Terry

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knapman, Roger

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Durant, Tony

      Knowles, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evennett, David

      Latham, Michael

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fallon, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Favell, Tony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lilley, Peter

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lord, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Franks, Cecil

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Freeman, Roger

      Maclean, David

      French, Douglas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Madel, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mans, Keith

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maples, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marland, Paul

      Gorst, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Gow, Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gregory, Conal

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Mellor, David

      Ground, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hague, William

      Mills, Iain

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hannam, John

      Moate, Roger

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

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Harris, David

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hayward, Robert

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Mudd, David

      Heddle, John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nelson, Anthony

      1003

      Neubert, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stern, Michael

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Norris, Steve

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Page, Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Paice, James

      Summerson, Hugo

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Pawsey, James

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Portillo, Michael

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Price, Sir David

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Raffan, Keith

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Redwood, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Renton, Tim

      Trippier, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Trotter, Neville

      Riddick, Graham

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Walden, George

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Waller, Gary

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Rost, Peter

      Ward, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ryder, Richard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Watts, John

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Wheeler, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wilshire, David

      Shelton, Sir William

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Sims, Roger

      Yeo, Tim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 9

      DISQUALIFICATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
      Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 6, line 10, leave out `(c) and (d)' and insert 'and (c)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 110, in page 6, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3A) For subsection (4) of that section "meaning of suitable employment" there shall be substituted—
      "(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, regulations shall

      (a) prescribe matters which are to be taken into account or determining whether a person does have good cause for any act or omission;"'

      No. 2, in page 6, line 31, at end insert
      'other than—

      (a) whether the level of remuneration is reasonable for that employment, or

      (b) any excuse that the person would be likely to incur in connection with that employment.'.

      No. 3, in page 6, line 38, after 'which', insert
      1004
      'is unsuited to his skills or experience or'.
      Government amendment No. 99.
      No. 111, in page 7, line 40, at end add—
      '(7) Nothing in sections 7, 8 and 9 shall prevent the adjudication officer when reaching any decision under sections 7, 8 and 9 taking into account patterns of employment associated with particular professions.'.
      Mrs. Beckett: The amendments relate to clause 9 which, as indicated in the debate on amendment No. 5, is of a piece with other aspects of the Government's approach to wages and the nature of the job search required by clause 7. The effect of clause 9 as it stands will be to require people to apply for or take jobs or training places without regard to the suitability of those jobs or training places to their skills and experience, and without regard in particular—again, this is written on the face of the Bill —to the wages offered or to the conditions of work. Rejecting or failing actively to search for any work, at any wages and in any conditions, may lead to benefit being suspended—probably, as seems to be the norm these days, for the full period of six months, as there is no evidence of discretion available to adjudication officers in that respect.
      No Government have offered such a carte blanche to the greedy, irresponsible or exploitative employer since unemployment insurance was invented in 1911, and with it the idea that a job offer could be rejected without incurring disqualification from benefit if there was good cause and the offer was not of suitable work. It is important to emphasise that, under the law, after a period of unemployment people might be called on to widen their horizons beyond the direct field of their previous job, but they could not be disqualified for rejecting or refusing to pursue a job if the wages and conditions on offer were not reasonably fair once the scope of search had been widened.
      Through this clause, as through other measures such as the removal of wages councils, the Government seem to be trying to erase the idea that there is any such thing as a proper job or a living wage. In pursuit of that objective, people may be pressured by the threat of disqualification and suspension of benefit to take steps that they may believe—and may be correct to believe—are damaging to their long-term prospects of re-employment. Someone with a skilled job or a supervisory or managerial post might be pressed to take a job as a janitor or clerical assistant because that was all that was readily available.
      Ministers claim that that will not happen, but that is not what the law says. What Conservative Back Benchers say is more interesting and truthful. They say, "Why not?" They want to know what is wrong with being a janitor or clerical assistant and why people should not be pushed into any job because any job is better than being on the dole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear Conservative Members justifying my observations.
      It is far from clear whether employers are as open-minded as Conservative Members. The Opposition regret that an employer receiving an application for a supervisory or managerial post from a former manager or supervisor now labouring on the shop floor may not get further down the application form than "present occupation" before throwing it in the bin and saying, "He must be joking." One of our prime complaints about the Bill is that the only way in which it seeks to affect the job market is by punishing the unemployed. It has nothing to offer on other obstacles to possible re-employment, such as the attitudes of employers.

      1005
      Amendment No. 116 deals with the question of retaining the word "suitable" in section 20(1)(d) of the Social Security Act 1975. That subsection would otherwise be able to disqualify someone who has without good cause refused to carry out any recommendations given with a view to assisting him to find employment. When we are not even talking about a job which is necessarily available to that individual, but merely about the advice that he might be given to look for a job, it is right to retain the concept of people looking for "suitable" employment. Certainly it would be wrong to disqualify a person for failing to carry out a recommendation.
      Amendment No. 2 is directed specifically at the level of pay and would write into the Bill two exceptions to the general ban on taking into account at any stage the level of remuneration—whether the rate of pay is reasonable for the job and also work expenses. It is plainly absurd to suggest that no account should be taken of the rate of pay. Someone is entitled to expect a reasonable rate of pay for the job on offer, whatever the job or however long the period of unemployment that the person has suffered. The Government's view on this is not altogether clear. In Committee the Minister agreed that
      "Someone who turns down a job offered to him privately at a derisory wage should not be disqualified from unemployment benefit."
      The Minister seemed to fear that someone in a private agency might tip off the Department of Social Security that a person had turned down a job which it was wholly unreasonable, even in the Government's view, for him to accept and he might then be disqualified from benefit. The Minister said:
      "I want to find a way through regulations preventing that from happening, but cannot say exactly how it is possible to do it, nor what the impact might be on other sources through which the job might be advertised."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 February 1989; c. 487–533.]
      We pressed the Minister on that and asked what would happen if a job was advertised not just through a private agency—we agree that the Government should act in that case–but by a private agency and at the jobcentre, whether or not the person knew that the job was on offer at the jobcentre. What would happen if the person turned the job down because the wages were derisory? Will that be allowed if the job is offered privately, but not if it is offered at the same wages through the jobcentre? We asked the Minister that question in Committee, but there is no record of a reply, let alone one that makes any sense. The only way in which the Minister's proposal would make any kind of sense would be if it were extended to jobs offered through the jobcentre as well as through private agencies. That is the first leg of amendment No. 2.
      The second part of amendment No. 2 would allow work expenses explicitly to be taken into account when deciding whether a person had good cause to refuse a job. Again, we discussed that at length in Committee. Although we challenged the Minister about work expenses such as travel and child care costs, and asked whether they would count as good cause for refusing a job on low wages, the Minister seemed to say that he thought that they "ought to" as opposed to "would." Because the provision in the Bill explicitly states that all questions of remuneration are ruled out, that might be taken to override the Minister's comments about what it might he nice to take into account in the way of work expenses. At one point the Minister said:
      1006
      "There is no straightforward answer"—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 9 February 1989, c. 408.]
      about the kind of work expenses that might be taken into account.
      Ms. Short: My hon. Friend will recall that there is provision in the Bill for the Government to make regulations allowing them to set minimum pay levels. If the pay for a job was below that, it would be reasonable to turn it down. The Minister explicitly refused to promise to make such regulations, so despite the undertaking to which my hon. Friend refers, unless the Minister changes his mind today he is explicitly ruling out making any regulations to provide for a minimum level of pay.
      Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. She will recall that in Committee some examples were given of levels of pay that we thought most people would consider wholly inadequate. The main reaction to them was to challenge whether jobs with such levels of pay were on offer, not to say that if they were on offer they should not be accepted.
      7 pm
      Our other reason for raising the issue of work expenses is that, although the Minister discussed the question of travel expenses, he later confirmed that it was travelling time rather than cost that would constitute good cause for refusal. The physical difficulty of a person's taking on a job, rather than his or her travel expenses making the wages wholly unrealistic, would be considered a good cause. Later, however, the Minister once again seemed to suggest that expenses or costs might be taken into account. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) pressed the Minister about whether gross or net pay would be considered, the Minister said that he imagined that account would be taken of the take-home pay of the person involved.
      One reason why we are determined to make the effort to write into the Bill some specific reference to work expenses, and why we are reluctant to accept that in practice sensible guidelines will be adopted, is the fact that social fund officers are explicitly prevented by the Department's guidelines even from offering loans towards work expenses, and even where the absence of such money means that the job will be lost. That is why amendment No. 2 should commend itself to the House.
      Amendment No. 3 prevents people from being forced, under threat of disqualification, to take jobs unsuited to their skills or experience. In Committee, the Minister's remarks showed that he thought that the concept of a suitable job ought to be taken into account, even though he was taking it out of the legislation. Some reference of that kind should be written into the legislation so that in considering good cause, quite apart from the rate of pay, the authorities will have to take suitability into account.
      As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will be able to lay down in regulations what is or is not good cause. Those regulations could remove many of the established safeguards in case law on issues such as suitability. If the Government had intended good cause to cover everything except the level of pay, now covered by suitability, there would be no reason not to retain both concepts in the Bill. Therefore, if the Government intend the adjudicating authorities to take into account some concept of suitability, that should be encouraged by some reference in the Bill. That is the purpose of amendment No. 3.

      1007
      This group of amendments should commend itself to the House. My hon. Friends and I, however, direct our attention particularly to amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 110 and 111 that appear in my name, and, mercifully, I can do so briefly. I had in mind two ideas when tabling these amendments. First, I wanted to increase the measure of flexibility available to adjudicating officers and their like when they consider some of the questions contained in clause 9; to acknowledge the difficulty that people with disabilities have in acquiring employment; and to prevent them from being doubly penalised.
      Secondly, amendment No. 111 seeks to take account of the needs of professions such as acting. I fully recognise and understand that there was an extensive debate on that in Committee. However, it is right to take a few moments to look again at the difficulties facing those who pursue professions and jobs that are seasonable, may be stop-go and may not fit well into the pattern set out by the Department.
      The House will know, and those who were on the Committee will remember that much play was made of the fact, that actors work on a casual basis with short-term contracts and might be required to work for one day at a time. In between those days of work, there may be long gaps which make for an erratic employment pattern. That makes it difficult for them to qualify under the various regulations stipulated by the Bill. The provisions in clause 8 require a claimant to work 13 weeks within a 26-week period in order to requalify for unemployment benefit. That would be a difficult requirement for actors to meet.
      Clause 9 says that anyone on the register for three months or more must be prepared to accept any work at any rate. If that policy were ruthlessly pursued, it would have the potential to drive actors out of their profession. I know that Ministers said that they would make some concessions and seemed to be listening to our case in Committee. However, as I understand it, their concessions were in terms of the regulations that were to flow from the primary legislation.
      The House would be right to reconsider the opportunity that these clauses provide to make it clear on the face of the Bill—in the primary legislation—that there should be flexibility to protect these two particular categories of unemployment benefit claimants. In addition, the clause as it stands could trap many qualified people, particularly those with disabilities, who may have problems getting a job. Despite their high qualifications, such people may have to accept low-paid and unqualified manual work. In turn, that will prevent those without qualifications from obtaining the lower quality work. That problem may arise if the clauses proceed unamended.
      If the Government are setting their face against changing the general thrust of the legislation, we should seek to place on the face of the Bill a guaranteed degree of flexibility so that we do not have to rely on the Minister's statements that the legislation will be implemented with the customary milk of human kindness that we know to be in the forefront of every adjudication officer's mind. Generally, they serve the public well. Certainly, in my own constituency they do their job well and should not be criticised. However, they are under pressure, principally because the legislation that they are tied to implement is
      1008
      harsh and onerous. It is no fault of theirs that they have to apply it, and if they were given primary legislation that was more flexible at the edges, it would be easier to live with.
      It is a mistake for the House to legislate on the basis of ideal people in ideal situations. The real world is not like that but contains many disadvantaged people in difficult and trying circumstances. A bit of discretion and flexibility, such as that contained in the amendments, would improve the legislation. The legislation should not be—as it seems to be—promulgated on the basis that everybody is to be treated as a scrounger. However, we accepted in earlier discussions on other clauses that only a minority of people are work shy. Framing the legislation on the basis of trying to catch them, and catching everybody else in the net as a result, is a silly way to proceed. I hope that the amendments will elicit some new and more progressive thinking and more flexibility from the Minister of State than we received in Committee.
      Mr. Battle: Social security legislation is complex. Perhaps in recognition of that, the Department of Social Security has altered the logo—there is now a user-friendly smile—on its press handouts, but the legislation is still confusing.
      During discussion of the previous clause, the Minister said that the Bill would not hit single parents with young children, which is manifestly untrue. They will be hit; if they are claiming unemployment benefit they will not be automatically entitled to it—they will have to go through the availability for work test—
      Mr. Scott: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that people have a choice in this matter. If they are claiming unemployment benefit, they are, by definition, seeking to return to employment. If not, income support is the appropriate benefit for them. The lone parent has a clear choice.
      Mr. Battle: The Minister tried to tell the House during discussion of the previous clause that people could not claim and said that single parents with children under 16 would not be affected—but they will be. I accept the point that he has just made, if he will accept that what I say is true in the context of the whole Bill.
      Even Conservative Members who sat through the Committee proceedings for months have today repeated again that no one will be asked to accept any rate of pay. That, too, is palpably wrong. The Bill states that they will be asked to accept any rate. If they do not accept a job offered them at an incredibly low rate, they will be taken out of benefit, Conservative Members have repeated this afternoon. This may not be sinking in; many people outside the House do not believe it possible that the Government will force people to accept a job regardless of the pay offered for it.
      This clause effectively prices people into work, and that should be plainly spelt out. If nothing else emerges from all the debates on the Bill this should: people must be aware before they sign on that, if they do not take the job they are offered at the price offered, they will not receive benefit.
      The last time we debated this in Committee, the Minister challenged the idea that people are offered jobs at low rates. I seem to recall that he asked his civil servants to ring up jobcentres and check the examples that some of us gave of the jobs that were on offer there. I represent Leeds, which was a traditional manufacturing and textile area. The jobs have gone in the manufacturing sector and

      1009
      been replaced, to some extent, by jobs in the service sector. During that restructuring, there has been a shift in the economy to a two-tier system in which some people—the majority—occupy relatively secure jobs but others have been priced into the temporary, part-time and low-paid sector.
      I assure the Minister that I checked only yesterday with the Bramley jobcentre what jobs are on offer to the unemployed in my area. I shall focus on the low-paid jobs. The usual wages for jobs in the centre this week are £120 to £130 a week. That is well below the Council of Europe decency threshold, which the Government refuse to acknowledge, and well below the average wage in Britain, which now stands at £258 a week. Most of my constituents earn much less than the average wage. Perhaps the reason why the average wage is so high has something to do with the Financial Times report this week that directors and managers have had a 26 per cent. wage increase as a result of the tax cuts in last year's Budget. Perhaps they are pulling up the average wage. People at the bottom of the scale are certainly not earning high wages.
      7.15 pm
      In Bramley jobcentre, a semi-skilled lathe operator is offered £95 for a full week's work. A junior storekeeper will get £45 a week. A security guard—another job in the service sector—working 12-hour shifts and needing at least three months background in security before being able to apply gets £1.80 an hour. A presser, a job in what is left of the textile industry, is paid £2.1075 an hour, whatever that means. A machinist is offered £2.10 an hour.
      A wages council deals with the wages in the clothing and textile industries and sets the minimum wage at £1.90. So these jobs are offered at 10p or 20p above the minimum. The Government propose to remove the wages council, thereby removing the minimum rate. Wage rates will then fall and people will discover that they are being offered even less.
      In Committee, Conservative Members were sent a guide to the Bill by the Conservative party press department. It said that the purpose of the Bill was to
      "ease the rigidities of the labour market".
      The notes on clauses explain what that means:
      "the level of remuneration will not be a just cause for turning down a job offer".
      I hope that people are now sure what that means. It means that people will be forced to accept the lowest-paid jobs. The Government are deliberately manufacturing low pay by means of this Bill, and reinforcing the low-wage economy.
      As for work expenses, a person in my constituency was referred to an employment agency, which advised him to go to the parts of the country in which there were jobs. He paid the bus fare to Harrogate, where he was referred to a construction site. At the site, he was told that there were no jobs, and the manager could not imagine why the employment agency had sent him along. He returned to the employment agency to ask where the advertisement had been seen, only to be told that the agency did not go by advertisements but sent people to areas where developments were taking place to see whether they could find a job. Conservative Members who vote against our amendment will be telling people like my constituent that, having paid the bus fare to go to Harrogate for a job, they will not get the money back. They will lose out because they have tried to find jobs and have been misled by employment agencies.
      1010
      I hope that, at this late stage, the Government will tell people that this measure is designed to price them into work, and that they can be sent anywhere to find work, with no compensation or assistance. That will be profoundly unjust for the unemployed. It will not be easy for the Government to sell this measure with a smile and to pretend that it is part of a social security policy. It is part of a policy to price people into work. That is part of the Government's employment strategy and it has nothing to do with protecting people whose incomes are at the bottom of the scale.
      Mr. David Winnick: I want briefly to support the amendments. There is already enough pressure on the unemployed to take jobs which are often unsuitable and badly paid.
      Some of my constituents have brought their cases to my attention and, as is to be expected, I have taken them up with the local agencies. Inevitably, I have been informed of the regulations which the agencies are responsible for implementing locally. I know that some Conservative Members believe that the unemployed should take any job regardless of circumstances, conditions and pay. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) nodded in approval when that point was made earlier. We do not take that view. We work on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of the unemployed want to work. We do not accept for one moment the notion that they are workshy, or that they find any excuse not to take employment. In any country, a small number will behave like that, but they are wholly unrepresentative of most of the unemployed.
      Being unemployed, if only Conservative Members and Ministers could understand it, does not just mean having nowhere near enough income. That is bad enough, and it is worse if a person has family responsibilities. There is a psychological factor as well.
      Until very recently in the west midlands, there was a great deal of unemployment. In some parts of the region unemployment remains substantially high. But even in those circumstances, when a person could say that unemployment was not his fault and that others were in the same position, the unemployed did not feel like that. Instead, so many felt a sense of personal failure. They felt inadequate. Those in their 40s and 50s, with a lifetime of work behind them, felt that they had failed, and there was always the great worry about whether they would be able to work again. Those are all important and relevant factors when we are discussing legislation affecting those who are unfortunately without work.
      I understand that, in Committee, the Minister said that someone who turned down a job that had been offered to him privately at a derisory wage would not be disqualified from unemployment benefit. A person therefore offered a job with inadequate wage outside the jobcentre would not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit. The Minister may have changed his position. No doubt he will tell us the current position when he replies. However, if that remains the position—I shall be pleased if it does—is there not a contradiction between that and a person being offered a job at a derisory wage by a jobcentre? I hope that the Minister will answer those points.
      Pay is certainly important. Why should a person who has been earning a reasonable sum of money accept any job at a derisory wage? A person may well take the view that he will not be able to earn as much as he did previously. He may well take the view that he will not be

      1011
      able to work in precisely the same kind of occupation that he did previously. But that does not necessarily mean that he should take any type of job at a menial wage on which he cannot support his family. It is unthinkable that a person to whom a job is offered should not be able to take into consideration the pay that goes with it.
      Ms. Short: There is another point. People seeking full-time employment may be forced to take part-time employment. The Government realised that, under the Bill, people could be forced to take fewer than 25 hours' work a week and thus not be entitled to family credit, so they said that they would change that. But anyone seeking full-time work can be forced into a job with as little as 25 hours' work a week at any rate of pay.
      Mr. Winnick: I agree: my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I do not know whether Conservative Members are worried about this, but the nub of our argument is that it is wrong and inappropriate in every possible way that pay should not be a factor when a person decides whether to take a particular job. Our amendment will inevitably be Defeated—the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) nods in agreement—and that will mean that the unemployed will be in the position that we have been describing. They will not be able to take into consideration pay that is inadequate and on which they cannot support their family.
      That is wrong. No Conservative Member would want to be in that position, so why should other members of the community? Conservative Members would not like to be unemployed and be told that they must take a job however low the pay is, so why should our constituents be penalised in that fashion?
      Mr. Wigley: I may not have followed fully what the hon. Gentleman said, but may people be forced into jobs with low hours and low wages, and so be below the threshold for national insurance payments, thus being in danger of missing out there as well?
      Mr. Winnick: That may well be so.
      Just to widen the debate a little—if I am out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will correct me—I am opposed to changing Sunday trading hours not just on religious grounds—we respect those with a religious point of view on that issue—but because people may be forced to work on a Sunday for low pay. I am all the more determined to oppose any change in the Sunday trading law after this legislation. However, I shall not pursue that point.
      The Bill is a direct incentive to employers to pay disgracefully low wages. It helps those employers who could not care less about paying their employees adequately. Employers will in many cases take the view that the unemployed can be forced to take jobs with wages on which no one could support a family. This legislation is a direct incentive for the worst kind of employer. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is muttering, but whatever it is I doubt whether it was sympathetic to my point.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that a person who, in the circumstances that he describes, takes a relatively low-paid
      1012
      or part-time job would have his family income made up with family credit. These days, people earning in excess of £9,000 a year qualify for that extra benefit.
      Mr. Winnick: That is all very patronising. First, if such people had no young dependants, that would not apply. Secondly, the hon. Lady is saying that those employers who pay disgracefully low wages should be subsidised by the rest of the community. That shows what modern day Toryism has come to.
      The amendments would help to modify a bad Bill. They would give the unemployed some sort of protection. The amendments are justified and though they will be defeated we shall carry on the argument in the country.
      Mr. Bob Clay: My constituency and the Sunderland area are concentrated microcosms of the reality that my hon. Friends the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have been describing.
      For some time the Government have been pursuing the dual strategy of trying to make the real unemployment that exists in our society disappear from the statistics and neatly aiding the most unscrupulous employers. Those two objectives fit together like a hand in a glove and the clause will make matters even worse.
      Since December, Sunderland shipyards have been running down as a result of the Government's disgraceful and vindictive decision to close them, and 2,000 workers have been made redundant. The Government pretend that the situation is not as bad as it seems. There has been much propaganda claiming that one third of North East Shipbuilders' employees have already found other jobs. That is not true, but even if it were, it is extraordinary that the Government should think that it is all right for two thirds to remain unemployed.
      When we examine the claim that one third of those workers have been re-employed, we learn a great deal about why we need the amendments that we are debating. Three welders were sent by the jobcentre to Hull, over 100 miles from Sunderland, to do some welding work on a refrigerated cargo ship which had been sitting in the dock for weeks on end. When they arrived on the job they discovered that the hold had not been cleaned and that it was coated with rotting fish. Those welders were just told, "Clean it yourselves and get on with the job." And they did that for a derisory wage. After three days, they had finished the job and were back on the dole, but I guarantee that when the Sunderland jobcentre issues figures showing how many NES people have been re-employed since being made redundant, they will be included. I suspect, indeed, that if they are sent to another rotten job for a couple of days next week they will be counted yet again—the same people.
      7.30 pm
      Then we have the sort of situation that I mentioned in a previous debate, and on which I want to dwell a little tonight. An unscrupulous ship repair employer on Teesside sends a bus to Sunderland, more than 30 miles away. Forty men are sent by the jobcentre to stand in the road at 5 o'clock in the morning, waiting to go to temporary employment in the ship repair yard on Teesside. The princely sum of £127 per week is offered to highly skilled workers. No travelling expenses or meal allowances are provided. When the bus pulls up, the foreman gets off and says, "I want five burners this

      1013
      morning. The rest of you can go home." That happens day in and day out. If someone says, "I am not prepared to go and stand there, like an animal in the market, at 5 o'clock in the morning, to be insulted like that," his benefit is stopped because he is deemed to be unavailable for work. That is the reality of Thatcher's Britain.
      Mr. Tony Banks: That is precisely the sort of situation that existed in the docks in the days before the dock labour scheme. The tally man would come along and chuck in the buttons, and the men would all fight to see who would get the jobs. The purpose of the proposal to scrap the dock labour scheme is precisely to get back to that situation.
      Mr. Clay: I would love to develop that point, but I suspect that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to do so.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: No, I would not.
      Mr. Clay: In passing, however, I can assure my hon. Friend that shipyard workers in Sunderland understand very well the opposition to the abolition to the dock labour scheme.
      Let me return to the question of availability for work and of unscrupulous employers. People who are, as it were, successfully employed, even on a temporary basis, are suddenly told that there is to be a four-hour overtime shift, five days a week. It is not compulsory, but the bus does not leave until after the overtime period. By the way, no premium rate is paid—it is flat rate. That is the type of employer involved. Of course, those men who are not fortunate enough to have their own cars know that it would take longer to get home by public transport than it would if they actually worked the overtime—the non-compulsory four-hour shift—and took the workers' bus. Tricks of that sort are being played by employers, who know that they have this legislation behind them and that people are in terror of having their benefit stopped.
      It is absurd for the Government to claim that, effectively, people are pricing themselves out of work. A skilled shipyard worker who asks for £167 a week—that was the skilled rate in British shipbuilding last year, before there was any pay rise—is not pricing himself out of a job. It is quite disgraceful that skilled people are having their benefit stopped because they are asking for that rate of pay.
      I want to draw attention to the other side of the coin in respect of these employers whom the Government are aiding. The employer that I mentioned—and there are many more like him—apart from the temporary work for three or four days a week, and even permanent low-paid employment for a handful of people, has some very short-term and temporary requirements. Four weeks ago, representatives of that employer were in the last remaining working part of the Sunderland shipyard—in the outfitting facility at North Sands—on a Friday afternoon. They were trespassing. Without management permission, they were circulating among the handful of workers still there waiting to be made redundant. They were saying, "We have a quick job on, over the weekend, down in Teesside. For anyone who wants to come, there is £100 in your hand. No questions asked. Work right through the weekend. You might actually have to work overnight, 24 hours round the clock, but there is 100 in your hand. Bring the gear with you." That is incitement to theft of
      1014
      British Shipbuilders' equipment, and blatant fraud in the sense of breach of tax and national insurance laws. This is the employer who is also indulging in the practices that I described earlier. Life will be so much better for him if the amendments that we are discussing are defeated. He will be able to abuse the system even more.
      I want to end on a point that I think is relevant to our discussion. More than a year ago I reported an employer for inducing people to work while claiming benefit. I was told by the Department of Employment that there was not enough evidence. Obviously, the employees involved were reluctant to be prosecuted. I asked if they could be given an amnesty, in which case they would give names and addresses and testify. For some reason an amnesty was not available. However, the employees gave the evidence anyway, and the Department of Employment had it for more than a year. Indeed, the regional fraud squad and the Department of Social Security were also in possession of it. After endless correspondence with the Department, I received last week a letter saying that that employer would not be prosecuted.
      A few weeks ago I tabled a parliamentary question asking how many employers had been prosecuted for breach of the social security regulations. According to the answer, in the last two years two people in the whole of Britain—one in Kent and one in Wales—have been prosecuted. A Government who can produce this Bill and reject amendments that would inject a scintilla of dignity into the process and give employees and the unemployed some fairly marginal protection in respect of their benefits, are quite happy to allow the unscrupulous, cowboy, criminal employers of Britain, who are defrauding the tax and social security systems, free licence.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Does not anyone on the Conservative benches wish to speak?
      Mr. Winnick: Will no one defend the Government?
      Mr. Scott: I apologise for the delay—I was expecting the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to contribute to the debate.
      I wish to explain briefly why it is impossible for me to commend these amendments to the House. I shall then refer to Government amendment No. 99. I do not think that there will be much surprise at our rejection of amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Indeed, the Opposition clearly expected me to advise the House to reject the amendments and that that would be the outcome of the Division. The first part of amendment No. 2 is an attempt to maintain the status quo and the concept of suitable employment. We had considerable discussion about this when the Bill was in Committee. In essence, the current situation is that the unemployed person may not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit if he turns down, or fails to follow up, an opportunity for employment that is not suitable. At present, the consideration of suitability includes consideration of the concept of what I might term the going rate of pay. If the job is not suitable, even in that respect, it can be turned down without incurring disqualification for benefit.
      One very undesirable effect of that provision is that it takes no account of the individual's ability to command a particular wage. We should consider whether it is right to ask an employer to pay exactly the same rate—the going rate—to a person who has recently moved from one job to another, and whose skills are still at a high level, and to a

      1015
      person who may have been out of work for a considerable time and require an element, or even a considerable amount, of retraining to get back to the level of skill of the rest of the employees. I believe that the employer should have the right to take into account the ability, skills and experience of potential recruits in deciding what pay to offer. The concept of the going rate is outmoded, but I understand why the Opposition cling to it.
      Nevertheless, we understand that when people are seeking work in the immediate aftermath of unemployment, a period ought to be allowed during which they can look for work in the field in which they worked before and at a level of pay similar to that which they previously enjoyed. That is why the Bill allows for a permitted period. When an unemployed person first visits the unemployment office, the new claimant adviser will give an indication of the length of the permitted period—a maximum of 13 weeks is allowed. The claimant will know that for the term of that permitted period he will be at risk of being disqualified only if he turns down jobs in the same field as his previous employment and offering the level of remuneration that he previously enjoyed.
      In the course of such interviews staff will of course be anxious to obtain as much detailed information as they can about the experience, skills and qualifications, as well as the personal circumstances, of the individual concerned. That will enable the employment service to identify appropriate vacancies and to discuss them with the individual. If a person refuses even to be interviewed for a job offered during the permitted period, or fails to turn up, his benefit is likely to be at risk. However, such decisions are taken by adjudication officers, who will have to judge and weigh the merits of individual cases.
      In offering a job to any person, the employment service will act in good faith and will establish as far as possible that the job is within the skills and capabilities of the individual concerned. The service will try to offer a vacancy with conditions generally within the range of what is representative of the local labour market in the occupation concerned. However, the service will not necessarily restrict itself only to vacancies advised by employers but will use its own wit and wisdom, and its knowledge of the local labour market, in canvassing other vacancies. Employment service staff will also be at pains to ensure that those seeking employment are advised about any in-work benefits that may be available. Those will depend on the individual's personal circumstances. The leaflet, "How To Be Better Off At Work" will be topped up by specific, detailed personal assessments of the in-work benefits and income available.
      The second part of amendment No. 2 seeks to incorporate in primary legislation a requirement that, in considering whether a person has good cause for rejecting a particular vacancy, adjudication officers should take work-related expenses into account. I cannot accept the amendment as drafted, but I believe that certain work-related expenses ought to be taken into account and, as I said in Committee, proper regard will be paid to that point. It is not a straightforward matter and requires careful consideration, but I give the House an undertaking that we shall introduce regulations which will be a more appropriate vehicle, taking account of that aspect.
      1016
      I do not intend to include child care costs. I know that there is a debate about that. Some people hold the view that child care costs should be included in the calculation, and I understand those feelings. However, lone parents, for whom such costs are likely to be the greatest burden, are not required to be available for work to qualify for income support. Others having high child care costs are probably second earners, and they are in a different category. I suspect that that argument will continue as we consider ways of encouraging people back into employment. The employment situation is growing tighter and tighter. That argument will not go away, but I am unable to accept it, and a provision for child care costs will not be included in the regulations that will be introduced in due course.
      7.45 pm
      Amendment No. 3 attempts to introduce in primary legislation the concept that a person cannot be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit if he refuses to seek or accept employment that is
      "unsuited to his skills or experience."
      Clause 9 already acknowledges that skills and experience are important, which is why we provide the permitted period, but it would not be right to include a longer-term provision in the legislation. Once a person has exhausted his permitted period, he ought to be expected to widen the scope of his job search activities and to contemplate employment outside those areas for which his skills and experience are best fitted.
      In Committee, there was general agreement that the longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult that person finds it to get back into work. The very fact that a person has been unemployed leads some employers to regard him as being less employable, if not unemployable. Even if a person finds employment in a field that is not his usual one, his chances of reverting to his usual trade and making full use of his experience and skills is improved.
      It would be a retrograde step to accept amendment No. 3, which would enable and encourage the unemployed unduly to restrict for a prolonged period the work that they are prepared to consider. That is not consistent with our desire to ensure that people are encouraged to make sensible use of all avenues in pursuing all the opportunities that become available. The employment service will, of course, take account of a person's skills and experience and attempt to find him an appropriate job. Where that cannot be done, it is right to take a wider approach.
      Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) are both wide-ranging. Amendment No. 110 places an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations for prescribing matters and circumstances which should be taken into account by the adjudication authorities in determining whether a person has good cause for turning down or failing to follow up an employment opportunity. I am not unsympathetic to setting out in regulations rather than in primary legislation as much guidance for adjudication authorities as possible. They must have a certain amount of discrimination—that is inherent in their work as an independent authority—but the more guidance we can give them in arriving at such decisions the better.
      We shall use the powers in the Bill, but we do not intend to produce an exhaustive list of considerations because we want adjudication offices to be left with some power to take account of matters and circumstances that they

      1017
      consider relevant in particular individual circumstances. The considerations that we shall specify by regulation will include whether the employment in question is likely to subject the claimant to unreasonable physical or mental stress, which will allow account to be taken of the individual's physical and mental capacity; whether it would conflict with a sincerely held religious or conscientious objection; whether the claimant's domestic responsibilities would make it physically difficult for him to undertake the employment; and whether the travelling time involved in reaching the place of employment would be excessive. As I indicated in Committee, we intend providing for travelling of less than one hour in each direction, unless even that is unreasonable due to a health factor. Also considered will be whether the expenses necessary to undertake the employment, excluding child care expenses, would absorb an unduly high proportion of earnings. Those are the kind of considerations that we hope to cover in regulations, and I trust that they will give a steer to adjudication authorities that will prove helpful overall.
      Amendment No. 111 seeks to provide that regulations will take into account.
      "patterns of employment associated with particular professions."
      I thought that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would intervene on that point, but I know that he has been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. In essence, I am reluctant to move to a situation in which particular professions are plucked out and entirely different arrangements made for them. I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to be as helpful as possible to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and to the representatives of Equity who recently met him.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I did not intervene earlier because I did not wish so to inflame the Minister as to set at naught the progress that we have made so far. I am obliged to the Minister for what he has done so far, but the case presented by British Actors Equity clearly reveals acting as a profession, and actors as a body of workers who are particularly affected. I believe that the Government ought to make an exception for them.
      Mr. Scott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is anxious to be as helpful as he possibly can. Amendment No. 111, another wide-ranging amendment, attempts to empower the adjudication officer to override any provision or alteration made in clause 7, 8 or 9 by enabling him to take into account any pattern of employment associated with particular professions. That was the main point raised by Actors Equity.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I am sure that the Minister has the interests of the profession at heart, but it would be helpful if he could sketch some of the progress, if any, made in negotiations between the Under-Secretary of State and the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
      Mr. Scott: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would have a word with my hon. Friend at the end of the debate as he has had meetings with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and with representatives of Actors Equity.
      Government amendment No. 99 in no way alters the policy on permitted periods. It states more clearly on the
      1018
      face of the Bill precisely what the intentions are. A decision on a person's permitted period will be made by adjudication officers. Such a decision could be relevant only when a person has turned down a job and faces the possibility of disqualification under section 20. We thought it right to clarify the situation in primary legislation.
      The amendment seeks to provide that adjudication will not be necessary at the beginning of every claim. Informal advice will be given to a claimant about what his permitted period is likely to be. If a doubt then arises, the adjudication officer will make a formal decision on the permitted period, but it would never be shorter than the period of which the claimant was advised in the beginning and in certain circumstances it might turn out to be longer. Individuals will know for how long they can safely hold out in an attempt to get jobs in their usual occupations by resting on the advice of the employment service as given at the beginning. That is a helpful amendment which clarifies the Government's intention. I ask the House to accept it and to reject the other amendments.
      Mrs. Beckett: I take the Minister's point on amendment 99 about the preference for giving informal advice about the permitted period. I am glad to hear him reiterate what he wrote in a letter to me—that the adjudication officer's ruling would never be for a shorter period than initially advised. As that is not stated in the proposed amendment, I presume that the Minister is indicating that it will be included in the regulations. He nods, so I am pleased to have that confirmation.
      Perhaps the Minister might wish to consider later that it might be useful for the individual to have the right to ask for a formal decision by the adjudicating officer on the length of the period of disqualification; he should not: be left in limbo, particularly if he is not happy with the initial advice given on the length of the permitted period. He should have the right to go to the adjudicating officer at any stage to ask for a formal ruling on the permitted period. He would then know where he stood, and would not possibly risk disqualification if he thought that the original ruling was so unreasonable that no one could really have meant it.
      We believe that three months should be the minimum length of the permitted period rather than the maximum length, because in many cases it seems to be too short a time.
      We are trying to find ways of improving clause 9, particularly as it removes all considerations not only of the way the skill or experience of people should be taken into account in deciding whether a job offer is suitable, but especially of levels of pay.
      The Minister adopted the sort of sympathetic manner that he no doubt hopes the adjudication officers will adopt with claimants. No doubt anyone listening only to the Minister would think that the Government were putting a reasonable case. Fortunately we have also heard hon. Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). They spoke of the harsh and dark reality of the wage levels and conditions of work that people are now under pressure to accept in the present labour market. Particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North identified the

      1019
      terrible pressure brought to bear now on unemployed people and how that pressure is likely to be exacerbated out of all recognition by the Bill.
      The Minister said that people should be expected, after a period of unemployment, to widen their job scope. As with clause 7, Labour Members recognise that people should be, and under current legislation are, expected to widen the scope of their job search. The Minister said that he realises that a period of unemployment leads some employers to regard people as less employable, but nothing is being done in the Bill about that attitude. Only the unemployed are having their behaviour modified, not those who might be able to offer people work.
      I believe that the case put by my hon. Friends reflects more accurately the reality of the labour market and also the terrible condition into which we believe it is likely to sink if this legislation is passed. I intend to advise my hon. Friends to press amendment No. 2 and, in those circumstances, to withdraw amendment 116.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 6, line 31, at end insert
      `other than—

      (a) whether the level of remuneration is reasonable for that employment, or

      (b) any expense that the person would be likely to incur in connection with that employment.'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 280.

      Division No. 178]

      [7.57 pm

      AYES

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dalyell, Tam

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Darling, Alistair

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dixon, Don

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dobson, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Battle, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Eastham, Ken

      Blair, Tony

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Boyes, Roland

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bradley, Keith

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Flannery, Martin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Flynn, Paul

      Buchan, Norman

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Buckley, George J.

      Foster, Derek

      Caborn, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fraser, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      George, Bruce

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clay, Bob

      Gordon, Mildred

      Cohen, Harry

      Gould, Bryan

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Graham, Thomas

      Corbett, Robin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cousins, Jim

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Crowther, Stan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cryer, Bob

      Hardy, Peter

      Cummings, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      1020

      Holland, Stuart

      Murphy, Paul

      Home Robertson, John

      Nellist, Dave

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Brien, William

      Howells, Geraint

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hoyle, Doug

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Illsley, Eric

      Prescott, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Janner, Greville

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Richardson, Jo

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Robertson, George

      Kennedy, Charles

      Rogers, Allan

      Kilfedder, James

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Salmond, Alex

      Lamond, James

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lewis, Terry

      Short, Clare

      Livsey, Richard

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      McAllion, John

      Soley, Clive

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Spearing, Nigel

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McKelvey, William

      Stott, Roger

      McLeish, Henry

      Strang, Gavin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Madden, Max

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Vaz, Keith

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wall, Pat

      Martlew, Eric

      Walley, Joan

      Maxton, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meacher, Michael

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Meale, Alan

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Michael, Alun

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Winnick, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Mullin, Chris

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bowis, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Allason, Rupert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Amess, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Amos, Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Ashby, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Burns, Simon

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Burt, Alistair

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Butcher, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Butler, Chris

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butterfill, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Benyon, W.

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Cash, William

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Boswell, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      1021

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cran, James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Curry, David

      Key, Robert

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

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Day, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dicks, Terry

      Knowles, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knox, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dover, Den

      Lang, Ian

      Dunn, Bob

      Latham, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Evennett, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Favell, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lord, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Forman, Nigel

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maclean, David

      Forth, Eric

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Franks, Cecil

      Madel, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Major, Rt Hon John

      French, Douglas

      Mans, Keith

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Maples, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Marland, Paul

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gow, Ian

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mellor, David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gregory, Conal

      Mills, Iain

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grist, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Ground, Patrick

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hague, William

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hannam, John

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

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

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Harris, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Neubert, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Heddle, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hill, James

      Norris, Steve

      Hind, Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Holt, Richard

      Paice, James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howard, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

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

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Pawsey, James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Price, Sir David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Raffan, Keith

      Irvine, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Irving, Charles

      Redwood, John

      Jack, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jackson, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      Janman, Tim

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      1022

      Ridsdale, Sir Julianq

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Ryder, Richard

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Thurnham, Peter

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Tracey, Richard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Trippier, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Trotter, Neville

      Shelton, Sir William

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Walden, George

      Shersby, Michael

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Sims, Roger

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Ward, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wheeler, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Whitney, Ray

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Steen, Anthony

      Wilshire, David

      Stern, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Sumberg, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 99, in page 7, line 9, leave out from 'means' to end of line 13 and insert
      `in relation to any person, such period, whether expired or not, as may be determined in accordance with regulations by an adjudication officer on the submission of the question whether that person is disqualified under section 20 above for receiving unemployment benefit; and any such regulations may prescribe—

      (a) the day on which any such period shall be regarded as having commenced in any case;'.—[Mr. Scott.]

      Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 40, at end insert—
      `(7) In section 97(1C) of the principal Act, at the end there shall be added the words "and, in particular, on the determination of the period for which a person is to be disqualified, under section 20(1) above for receiving unemployment benefit".'.
      I shall move the amendment with extreme brevity in view of the constraints on time.
      In Committee, we discussed the unfettered discretion that adjudication officers have to impose a period of disqualification which can range from one week to 26 weeks. We pointed out to the Minister that there is substantial evidence that adjudication offices automatically imposed the maximum period of disqualification when it was six weeks, continued to do so when it was 13 weeks and still impose it automatically now that it is 26 weeks. Although there must be some, I have never come across a case in which anyone was disqualified from the benefit for less than 26 weeks. Before the Minister says that those are the people who write to Members of Parliament, the same decision continues to apply to people who have been told that their disqualification is being called in question and have not received a formal decision as to the period of disqualification. But invariably the formal disqualification is for the full 26 weeks.
      The Minister said that advice might be given by the chief adjudication officer or that commissioners' decisions should provide guidance on what consideration should be

      1023
      given to the period of disqualification. However, the commissioners have said that, because of the way in which the legislation is drafted, they can give no real guidance, and the chief adjudication officer in his annual report complained about his inability to offer guidance. Therefore, it is clear that no guidance will be offered, although the chief adjudication officer has said how difficult it is for adjudication officers to exercise that discretion.
      The amendment seeks to give the chief adjudication officer the power he wants to give more detailed advice on the subject. I commend the amendment to the Minister. Although I do not expect him to accept it tonight, it deals with an issue which he should seriously consider.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Scott: I recognise that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has raised an important point, but amendment No. 4 is unnecessary because there is a general duty on the chief adjudication officer to provide advice and guidance. However, as we all know, adjudication officers have unfettered judgment in these matters.
      Despite what the hon. Lady said, I accept that she was conveying the facts to me as they were presented to her. I have no reason to believe that adjudication officers are not imposing disqualification periods to reflect the merits of any particular case. When we extended the maximum period of disqualification from 13 to 26 weeks last year, we made it clear that we would wish to ascertain what effect that change had on the amounts of benefit claimants lost and on the behaviour of claimants. We set up arrangements to study the impact of the change.
      During the past three months, we have carried out a survey which will provide information on the numbers and lengths of disqualifications imposed nationally and regionally. The results of that survey are being analysed. We also commissioned an independent agency, Social and Community Planning Research, to explore the impact of the change on decisions about leaving or taking work, as well as on the circumstances of those who are disqualified. I expect the results of both of the surveys to be available in the summer. Of course, they will be published and that will be the appropriate time for us to consider the matter.
      Ms. Short: If the results of the survey show that almost universally people are disqualified for 26 weeks, which is an incredibly long period, and even the Government are persuaded that the hardship is too great, what action does the Minister propose to take? What is the point of the survey? What will he do if the results are bad?
      Mr. Scott: However charmingly the hon. Lady presents it, I am certainly not going to be drawn into answering a hypothetical question. Let us establish the facts and then decide on the appropriate action.
      Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the Minister has answered the matter fairly. The chief adjudication officer said that legal advice confirms that he is unable to do more than guide adjudication officers on their general approach. However, I am quite confident that, unless the Minister is prepared to take some action, the issue will come up again. So that we can make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

    Clause 10

      INCOME SUPPORT AND UNEMPLOYMENT
      Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 45 after 'and', insert
      ',unless he is responsible for and a member of the same household as a child,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 113, in page 8, line 4, at end add
      `bearing in mind any limitations that may be imposed on a person by virtue of any physical, sensory or mental impairment'.
      Mr. Flynn: The amendment strikes at the squalid heart of the Bill because clause 10 harbours outrageous new powers. Part of the new parrot cry of the Conservative party is its claim that it wants to make parents accountable for the crimes of their children, but clause 10 will chastise children for the faults of their parents. It is malevolent because it will deprive people of their only source of income. It sinks to new depths of incompetence, indifference and spite.
      It has always been recognised that unemployment entitlement must be subject to certain conditions designed to show that the claimant has not become or remains unemployed through his or her deliberate action. That is understood and recognised by both sides of the House, but it has also been recognised that disqualification from unemployment benefit on those grounds should have some effect on entitlement to a minimum income under the means-tested fallback scheme—previously supplementary benefit and now income support.
      Under the present rules, a person who leaves a job voluntarily without just cause or who refuses an offer of suitable employment loses all entitlement to employment benefit for up to 26 weeks—in most cases, it is a minimum of 26 weeks—but he or she can still claim income support, although not at the full rate, and subject to a reduction of 40 per cent. of the rate for a single person. That is accepted as a harsh, if not a punitive, disincentive for anyone to claim benefit when he is not available for work.
      Many people would argue that the 40 per cent. reduction is excessive, especially when it is applied, as it usually is, for as far as we know, no one has ever suggested that it should be increased to a 100 per cent. reduction, leaving the claimant with no income to provide for his own needs and those of his family. That extreme penalty is imposed only when someone is claiming income support as an unemployed person and is judged not to be available for work at all and is not really unemployed. Clause 10 will extend that 100 per cent. penalty and the judgment of total destitution to people who are available for work but who have failed to satisfy a fairly junior civil servant that they have maintained an active search for jobs for at least 50 weeks of the year.
      We are giving an extraordinary new power to junior civil servants to set up kangaroo courts in which they will detect offences, carry out interrogations and then preside, as judge and jury, over the case—subject to appeal. Even if one accepts that such an offence should be punishable by law, the penalty is wholly disproportionate. Twenty-six weeks'—a half year's—salary plus possible benefits for children is a formidable fine for any offence. The only safeguard against the worst effects of that massive penalty is a little-known, little-used and gossamer-weak provision

      1025
      in the regulations, which provides that a person who is not available for work can nevertheless receive benefit if the claimant or a member of his family would otherwise suffer hardship.
      The Minister has said that the provision might be extended to cover people not actively seeking employment, but the concept of a civil servant being able to cut off a person's sole source of income without inevitably causing hardship is nonsense. I accept that it is possible for that to happen in some rare cases where vast savings are available to fall back on. But it is nonsense to apply that to single claimants and arrant nonsense for those with families to support.
      Amendment No. 5 concentrates on the threat posed by clause 10 to the families of unemployed people with dependent children. It does not wholly represent our views. We would like to get rid of clause 10 altogether, but, being practical people, we believe that the amendment is an attainable and reasonable end, even in terms of the way in which the Government see the Bill.
      The case for exempting families with children from the effects of clause 10 is overwhelming. Even if it were right to punish an unemployed person for failure to take active steps for 50 weeks a year to search for work, it cannot be right to punish that person's children. The principle that children should not suffer for the sins—or imagined sins—of their parents is recognised in the rules relating to strikers' families. Those rules themselves have been changed disgracefully in recent years, imposing savage reductions in the benefits available for strikers' families, but even the present Government have not dared to withdraw those benefits altogether.
      The effect of amendment No. 5 would not be to exempt people with children from the actively seeking employment test. They would still stand to lose entitlement to unemployment benefit. The amendment would mean that such people would be able to claim income support, and to receive it, if they could show that they were available for work. If a person refused a job without due cause, his income support would be subject to the usual stringent 40 per cent. reduction for voluntary unemployment. It cannot be argued that the amendment would open the floodgates to abuse. It would merely prevent the actively seeking work test from condemning children to utter destitution.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I want to speak briefly on the effect that the Bill, as presently drafted, would have on those who are disabled. Amendment No. 113 seeks to insert the words:
      "bearing in mind any limitations that may be imposed on a person by virtue of any physical, sensory or mental impairment."
      That is an attempt to ensure that disability is taken into account in the actively seeking work test. We had important discussions on that in Committee. Some assurances were given, but only in relation to the prospective total exemption of disabled people from passing some of the tests to prove that they were actively seeking work.
      Amendment No. 113 takes a slightly different tack and seeks to mitigate the test that will be applied to disabled people. That is important because we still do not know, with any certainty, just how active a person will have to be to prove that he is seeking employment. Against that background, it is right that we should consider the problems that disabled people may face. The regulations may, for example, require the person to accomplish tasks that are beyond his physical or other capacities as a result
      1026
      of disability. I am sure that the House agrees that it would be wrong to refuse benefit to disabled persons by virtue of their special behaviour in seeking work. They may not match the behaviour prescribed because they are suffering from disabilities.
      Some of the problems were described in Committee. Difficulties would inevitably be experienced by people who are bound to spend their lives in wheelchairs. It would be unfair if there were requirements that necessitated them having access to places of work and methods of transport that were difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate in wheelchairs. It would be similarly unfair to require people to search out job opportunities by telephone or other means if they were deaf or blind, or had difficulty in writing and consequently needed help from someone without such impairments, who might not be available when required. Expecting someone to call regularly at a jobcentre where there may be no accessible transport is similarly unfair.
      We received some assurances from the Minister that exemptions would be considered. The amendment seeks to improve the position by requiring some account to be taken of disability in the actively seeking work test. I hope that the Minister has had a chance to study our discussions in Committee and that he will be able to make some positive comments this evening.
      Mr. Tony Banks: If someone is ruled to be not actively seeking work, will he lose his entitlement to all benefits unless he can demonstrate hardship? As the Minister knows, I was a member of the Standing Committee for a while until I was transferred to another Bill, so I was not present when clause 10 was debated. It seems outrageous that, if someone is ruled not to be actively seeking work, he could lose his right to all benefits unless he could prove hardship. Once again, humiliation is being heaped on people. Amendment No. 5 seeks to establish that, if somebody has family commitments, he will not have to demonstrate hardship. It will be immediately accepted, and the person will at least receive the 60 per cent.
      I find it strange that two otherwise seemingly decent Ministers—I have described them as such several times, but I do not know whether they are deceiving me or whether I am being overly charitable—could allow such a situation to occur. At this stage, I assume that I am misreading the Bill and that that will not be the situation. I cannot believe that the Minister would allow someone to lose his benefit unless he could prove hardship and that he would be required to do so under the circumstances that we know exist, when people have to lay bare their private lives. I am assuming that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong, but if I am right I am assuming that the Minister will accept the amendment.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Scott: I want to make it clear first that, whatever view the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may take of my attitude, the situation now is no different from the situation that existed under previous Governments, including Labour Governments. It has always been clear that one's entitlement to what in those days was supplementary benefit was affected if one was not available for work. There was a reduction of 40 per cent. or in certain circumstances 20 per cent. in the personal rate

      1027
      of the individual who was not satisfying the available for work test, which is now changed to the actively seeking work test.
      Of course, the allowances paid for dependants of the family would not be affected. There is nothing new in that. There is also a provision in the income support legislation that claimants can receive benefit without having to be available for work if they are lone parents, or if they are looking after a child because the responsible adult is ill or temporarily absent from home, or looking after a member of the family who is temporarily ill. All those groups would be exempt from the requirement to be actively seeking work.
      It seems bizarre to suggest that a couple with children should both be exempt from the need actively to be seeking work. If one tried to think of circumstances in which a family should be encouraged to provide income from employment, it would be where young children are in the household. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West considerably overstated things when he said that all the benefit will be taken away. If the benefit comprised the only resources available to the family, which is what the hon. Gentleman was predicating, it would obviously be difficult to pretend that there would not be hardship. Therefore, the hardship provision would come into effect and the benefit would be paid—and be reduced by either 20 per cent. or 40 per cent.—to the person who was not satisfying the condition, but the dependency additions would not be affected. That is precisely the same as circumstances that existed under Labour Governments.
      Mrs. Beckett: First, although what the Minister is saying is right in terms of the background provisions working against the availability for work test, the whole point of having the actively seeking work test is that it is likely to be much more stringent and therefore much more likely to bite on people.
      Secondly, surely my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right in saying that people's rights to benefit will be removed from them under clause 10 if they are ruled not to be actively seeking work, although, as the Minister drifted into saying in his last few sentences, if they can show that there is hardship, they may get some income with which to support their family. That is not the same as talking as if it is an automatic process. We think that it should be an automatic process, and that is the purpose of the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has moved.
      Mr. Scott: I am not saying that everything should stand still and that one should not, from time to time, consider such matters, but the hon. Lady was herself a member of Government—admittedly of one that applied the "availability" not the "actively seeking" test—who had exactly the same provisions to discourage people from resting on benefit instead of being in the business of getting themselves re-employed. I cannot accept amendment No. 5.
      On amendment No. 113, in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), it is fair to say that anybody claiming benefit on the basis of unemployment should be in the business of seeking work. That is what unemployment benefit is for: it is to help people who, through no fault of their own, become
      1028
      unemployed, and it is right that they should be encouraged to get back into work as soon as possible. I believe—I said this in Committee and I repeat it now—that that test will be applied fairly and reasonably.
      Of course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we must take account of a wide variety of factors and a wide range of abilities and disabilities in reaching the decision. What we propose to do in regulations is to require that the claimant should show that he is looking for work by taking steps to secure the type of employment for which he is best suited and for which he is most likely to be recruited. If the claimant could not be expected to take any such step because physically or mentally it is beyond his capabilities, that would have to be taken into account in reaching a view about what is appropriate for him.
      It is a question of balance. We do not want to write off people with disabilities and say that they cannot have any sort of work, but a judgment must be made about the sort of work that their handicap enables them to do. We shall write that, as well as other matters, into the regulations.
      Another matter raised in Committee was the effect of homelessness on the sort of employment that people might be able to take. There will obviously be opportunities for us to discuss such issues under the affirmative procedure in due course when we discuss the regulations, but we are anxious to see that the regulations are drawn in such a way as to meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
      Mr. Flynn: Obviously, the point is not getting through. The present deduction of 40 per cent. is made in cases where someone has, in the judgment that has been made, voluntarily made himself or herself lose a job, or where a claimant has given up a job. That punitive measure is then taken. At the moment, we allow the 100 per cent. deduction where people are not available for work and the conclusion is reached that the person is not really unemployed, but is working at another job. Our objection is that, if a junior clerk decides that someone is not actively seeking work—allowing for what has been said today, we know that claimants are allowed two weeks' holiday in which they need not be actively seeking work—because he or she has failed to keep the log up to date or has missed a certain week through inadvertence, neglect, or 101 perfectly acceptable reasons, the claimant is then subject to this punitive and harsh measure whereby he or she loses not only any benefit available to him or her, but also the entitlement to income support—as does the family.
      That is our point. Although it was not said in Committee, as it stands at the moment, this clause will punish the person who is claimed to be not actively seeking work, and that punishment is harsh not only on that person, but on the family. That is what comes out clearly when we read and re-read the reports of the Committee stage.
      Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and, although on reflection and further study I think that he will discover that he is wrong, I cannot accept the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Is the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) seeking to withdraw his amendment?
      Mr. Flynn: No, we wish to press the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 265.

      Division Number 179]

      [8.37 pm

      AYES

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Illsley, Eric

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ingram, Adam

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Janner, Greville

      Ashton, Joe

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Kilfedder, James

      Barron, Kevin

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Battle, John

      Lamond, James

      Beckett, Margaret

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lewis, Terry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Livsey, Richard

      Blair, Tony

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Boyes, Roland

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bradley, Keith

      McAllion, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Buchan, Norman

      McKelvey, William

      Buckley, George J.

      McLeish, Henry

      Caborn, Richard

      Madden, Max

      Callaghan, Jim

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Martlew, Eric

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Maxton, John

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Meacher, Michael

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Meale, Alan

      Clay, Bob

      Michael, Alun

      Cohen, Harry

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Corbett, Robin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Crowther, Stan

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Cryer, Bob

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Cummings, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Darling, Alistair

      Mullin, Chris

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Dixon, Don

      O'Brien, William

      Dobson, Frank

      O'Neill, Martin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Patchett, Terry

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Pendry, Tom

      Eadie, Alexander

      Pike, Peter L.

      Eastham, Ken

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Prescott, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Faulds, Andrew

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Robertson, George

      Flannery, Martin

      Rogers, Allan

      Flynn, Paul

      Rooker, Jeff

      Foster, Derek

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Foulkes, George

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Fyfe, Maria

      Short, Clare

      Galbraith, Sam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Galloway, George

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

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Soley, Clive

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Spearing, Nigel

      George, Bruce

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Gordon, Mildred

      Stott, Roger

      Gould, Bryan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Graham, Thomas

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wall, Pat

      Grocott, Bruce

      Walley, Joan

      Hardy, Peter

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Holland, Stuart

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Home Robertson, John

      Winnick, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Howells, Geraint

      Worthington, Tony

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      1030

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Mrs Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Alexander, Richard

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Allason, Rupert

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Amess, David

      Forth, Eric

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Ashby, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Freeman, Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      French, Douglas

      Baldry, Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Batiste, Spencer

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bendall, Vivian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gorst, John

      Benyon, W.

      Gow, Ian

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gregory, Conal

      Body, Sir Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grist, Ian

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Ground, Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Hague, William

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowis, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hannam, John

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Brazier, Julian

      Harris, David

      Bright, Graham

      Hawkins, Christopher

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

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Heddle, John

      Burns, Simon

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Burt, Alistair

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Butcher, John

      Hill, James

      Butler, Chris

      Hind, Kenneth

      Butterfill, John

      Holt, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howard, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

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

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd,

      Cash, William

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irvine, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Irving, Charles

      Conway, Derek

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jackson, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Janman, Tim

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cran, James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Curry, David

      Key, Robert

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

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dicks, Terry

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knowles, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, David

      Dover, Den

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dunn, Bob

      Lang, Ian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Latham, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Evennett, David

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fallon, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Favell, Tony

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lord, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      1031

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Rowe, Andrew

      McCrindle, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Scott, Nicholas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Madel, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Shelton, Sir William

      Mans, Keith

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Maples, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Marland, Paul

      Shersby, Michael

      Marlow, Tony

      Sims, Roger

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mellor, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stern, Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mills, Iain

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Moate, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Sumberg, David

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Summerson, Hugo

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tracey, Richard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Trippier, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Walden, George

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Paice, James

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Ward, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Watts, John

      Pawsey, James

      Wheeler, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Whitney, Ray

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Portillo, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Price, Sir David

      Wood, Timothy

      Raffan, Keith

      Woodcock, Mike

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Yeo, Tim

      Redwood, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Riddick, Graham

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Rost, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 12

      HOUSING BENEFIT SUBSIDY
      Amendments made: No. 15 in page 8, line 21 after '(b)' insert
      `, other than those added by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989,'.
      No. 17 in line 34, leave out `within a prescribed period'.
      No. 18 in line 36, at end insert
      `and any such authority shall comply with prescribed requirements as to the time for making such an application.'.
      No. 19 in line 37, leave out subsection (2C) and insert—
      `(2C) Where a local authority would have been required to apply to a rent officer for determination under the Housing
      1032
      Act functions in a pre-commencement case, had the first regulations under subsection (2B) above come into force on 1st April 1989, regulations may make provision—

      (a) requiring the authority in prescribed circumstances to apply within a prescribed period to the rent officer for that determination to be made; and

      (b) requiring the rent officer in prescribed circumstances to make that determination on prescribed assumptions;

      and in this subsection "pre-commencement case" means any case which arises before the date on which the first regulations under subsection (2B) above in fact come into force.'.
      No. 20 in page 9, line 35, at end insert—
      `(8CC) If the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so in any particular case, he may give the authority in question written notice extending any of the periods prescribed under subsection (8C) above for the purposes of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of that subsection, as the case may be.'. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Clause 16

      UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO PARTICULAR PERSONS
      Amendments made: No. 63 in page 14, line 12 at end insert
      `or in any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 64, in page 14, line 20, at end insert—
      '(3A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence—

      (a) he believed that he was making the disclosure in question with lawful authority and had no reasonable cause to believe otherwise; or

      (b) he believed that the information in question had previously been disclosed to the public with lawful authority and had no reasonable cause to believe otherwise.'.

      No. 65, in page 14, line 29, at end insert
      'or in any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 66, in page 14, line 32, after `Schedule', insert `or that corresponding enactment'.
      No. 67, in page 14, line 38, after 'Act', insert
      'or in any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 68, in page 14, line 39, after `Schedule' insert
      `or any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 69, in page 14, line 44, at end insert—
      '(aa) the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland;'.
      No. 70, in page 14, line 45, at end insert—
      `(bb) the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;'.
      No. 71, in page 15, line 1, at end insert—
      '(ee) the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints;'.
      No. 72, in page 15, line 2 after `Office' insert—
      `or of the Northern Ireland Audit Office,
      (ff) any other person who carries out the administrative work of either of those Offices, or who provides, or is employed in the provision of, services to either of them;'.
      No. 73, in page 15, line 4 leave out `to (e)' and insert `(bb) and (c) to (ee)'.
      No. 74, in page 15, line 9 leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

      `(a) in accordance with his official duty—

      (i) by a civil servant; or

      (ii) by a person employed in the audit of expenditure or the investigation of complaints who does not fall within subsection (7)(ff) above ;'.

      No. 75, in page 15, line 12 `person', insert `either (i)'.
      No. 76, in page 15, line 16 leave out `(c)' and insert 'or (ii)'.
      No. 77, in page 15, line 25 at end insert
      `and includes a reference to "the person responsible" within the meaning of any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland.'.
      No. 105, in page 15, line 31, leave out from '1983' to 'as' in line 34 and insert
      'or any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland,
      (c) by a Scottish mental health custodian, that is to say—

      (i) a curator bonis, tutor or judicial factor, or

      (ii) the managers of a hospital acting on behalf of that person under section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, or

      (d) by a mental health appointee, that is to say—

      (i) a person directed or authorised as mentioned in paragraph (a) of rule 41(1) of the Court of Protection Rules 1984 or any similar appointee in Northern Ireland, or

      (ii) a receiver ad interim appointed under paragraph (b) of that rule, or any similar appointee in Northern Ireland,

      the appropriate person is the attorney, receiver, custodian or appointee,'.
      No. 80, in page 15, line 36, at end insert—
      '(10) This section shall come into force with the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

    Schedule 1

      PERSONS EMPLOYED IN SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR ADJUDICATION
      Amendments made: No. 83, in page 24, line 37, at end insert—
      'A benefit officer.
      An insurance officer.'.
      No. 84, in page 25, line 10, after 'or', insert—
      'to occupational or personal pension schemes or to'.
      No. 85, in page 25, line 12, after `above' insert—
      "`occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 66(1) of the Pensions Act;
      "personal pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 84(1) of the 1986 Act; and'.
      No. 86, in page 25, line 16, at end insert—
      'or related to the former supplementary benefit'.
      No. 27, in page 25, line 19, leave out `by persons in it'.
      No. 87, in page 25, line 23, after 'to', insert '(a)'.
      No. 88, in page 25, line 27, at end insert—
      '.,or
      (b) the tax treatment of occupational or personal pension schemes, as defined in paragraph 1(2) above:. — [Mr. Scott.]

    Clause 19

      RECOVERY OF SUMS EQUIVALENT TO BENEFIT FROM COMPENSATION PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS, INJURIES AND DISEASES
      Mr. Flynn: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 16, line 13, at end insert
      "(less any amount by which the compensation payment would have been greater but for the contributory negligence of the victim".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in page 16, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert—
      `(c) only to the extent that any part of the payment is, or in prescribed circumstances is deemed to be, for a prescribed purpose other than reimbursement for costs incurred in procuring the payment and does
      1034
      not exceed the amount of benefit, determined under subsection (1)(a) above, paid or likely to be paid for the same purpose,
      but'.
      Mr. Flynn: In view of the disagreement that we had on a previous amendment, there is a real prospect of a collapse of understanding between the two sides of the House. It was apparent in Committee that we were not talking about the same thing. Clause 19 is a fine example of how a Government bent on reform will act. We must say a grudging word of congratulation because the Government have tackled an extremely difficult problem. However, if one decides to do that, there is always a great danger that one will make the position worse. In many ways the Government have turned an untidy state of affairs into an unjust one and created chaos out of confusion. In Committee we withdrew an amendment similar to amendment No. 104 so that the Government might think again and so that good sense might prevail. The example given by the Minister in Committee was faulty.
      The two areas involved in the clause are the possibility of over-compensation, a dread area of Tory demonology, and the possibility of someone getting away with something, especially someone who is not well off. The Government are worried that someone may gain a few pennies to which he is not strictly entitled. Because state benefits and compensation for accidents are given for different purposes, there is a serious conflict. It is impossible to match the two awards. It is like mixing oil with water. Compensation for damages is awarded for pain, for suffering, for loss of amenity and for loss of standing in the labour market. Social security benefits are paid for different purposes—for additional needs arising from disability or to meet losses that are suffered inevitably because of absence from the labour market.
      The objection of the Minister of State to a similar amendment in Committee was that it might result in the dread over-compensation. He gave an example of what he called the perverse result that the suggested system would achieve, citing a case in which compensation was reduced from £10,000 to £5,000 due to contributory negligence and the injured party had received £2,000 in social security benefits. Under the Government's proposal the compensation of £5,000 would be reduced by a further £2,000 so that the Department of Social Security could get its money back and the person would receive £5,000 in total—£3,000 in compensation and £2,000 in benefit. The Minister continued on the same basis:
      "if we follow the line taken by the amendment, the person would end up with £6,000, rather than £5,000. He would be over-compensated in total and the taxpayer would have to make up the difference."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 2 March 1989; c. 867.]
      The Minister was wrong in Committee about the effect of the amendment.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is it not a fact that compensation is meant to pay for the physical injuries that a person has suffered and for the diminution in his earning power? Surely it is not meant to compensate the Government for benefits paid. Would it not be fairer if the Government accepted that compensation is a separate entity and that benefit should continue to be paid? This will clearly be a problem following the Hillsborough disaster.
      Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the very point that I was about to make. The effect of the amendment would be to reduce the amount of benefit repayable to the DSS by the full amount of compensation lost due to contributory negligence. In the case that the Minister cited, the compensation payment was reduced by £5,000 due to contributory negligence. In those circumstances, the repayment of benefit would not arise unless the benefit amounted to more than £5,000 so that the total amount paid in compensation and benefit exceeded the figure at which damages were assessed. The total amount paid in the case that the Minister cited would be £10,000. None of it would be repayable, so the person would end up with £7,000, not £6,000, but it does not matter whether the total is £6,000 or £7,000 because the person has actually lost £10,000.
      I would need visual aids to explain the point properly. If we decide that the loss is £10,000, that is the loss—the total amount of money from whatever source, whether it be security or compensation—which should be paid unless one takes the view that people ought not be compensated for any injury unless someone else was to blame. That is where we get into the strange and difficult interface between two benefits—compensation and social security. Such a decision would be startling and runs contrary to all the principles on which the social security system has always operated. A person who claims benefit as a result of food poisoning does not have to prove that someone poisoned his soup—he has to prove only that he is ill. The same applies to industrial injuries. The whole point of the industrial injuries scheme was to get away from the need to prove that the employer was to blame. If the injury arises from the job, benefit is payable in full whether or not there is contributory negligence on the part of the victim.
      The logic of the Minister's argument is that someone who carelessly walks out on the road, is run over and is confined to a wheelchair for the next 40 years would not be allowed to draw income support, let alone invalidity benefit or mobility allowance, because there was 100 per cent. contributory negligence. According to the Minister, any benefit payment would be over-compensation. If that means anything, it must mean that a person has received more than he or she lost as a result of the injury. If that can be proved, there may be a case for the compensator or the DSS to recover part of the money.
      Amendment No. 104 seeks to remove from the scope of clause 19 cases in which there is no possibility of over-compensation because the amount deducted for contributory negligence is more than the amount received in benefit. I can anticipate what the Minister will say about the practicalities because unless the compensation is determined by the court nobody will know what precise deduction has been made for contributory negligence. However, we had a great deal of evidence that in many cases the division was not made between compensation and deductions for contributory negligence. The Minister is creating a new situation. It is very much his problem. If he cannot find a solution that is both practical and fair, the recruitment arrangements cannot be operated in a proper way. The Government should accept that they have yet to find the proper answer and abandon the whole proposal.
      9 pm
      The Minister may also repeat his statement in Committee that the Government proposals were in accord with what Beveridge recommended in 1942. We have had
      1036
      an opportunity to re-read what Beveridge said in his report. The question of contributory negligence, which is crucial to the amendment, is not dealt with but at the end of that section of the report Beveridge wrote:
      "It is not possible in this report to do more than to raise these questions. Considered answers can be given only by inquiry by some Committee with technical and practical qualifications and with time to examine all the detailed areas involved."
      It is wrong, therefore, to treat Beveridge as the final authority on this matter. In fact the compromise solution adopted in the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 took into account contributory negligence, deliberately departing from Beveridge's very tentative recommendations. We look forward to hearing how the Minister intends to find a solution which makes some practical sense or that he will withdraw the clause.
      Amendment No. 6 was again similar to the one at Committee. We ran into difficulties and objections from the Minister, who suggested with some effrontery that it might produce a situation which was "excessively bureaucratic and legalistic". The Government are the authors of the change, so the obligation is again on them to achieve it without injustice. Unamended, the clause will certainly cause serious injustice.
      Amendment No. 6 seeks to avoid the taking away of benefit which had been properly awarded and received. As the clause stands, benefits paid for one reason can be recovered out of compensation payments made for an entirely different purpose or even taken out of payments which are not compensation but reimbursement of the victim's costs. In Committee the case of Parry v Cleaver was cited, which provided that one should take away only those things that are like from like.
      The amendments that we put to the Committee were unacceptable, but they were not answered fully. The whole basis of the Government's argument is the need to avoid double compensation. If a person suffers an injury and receives social security benefits to compensate for loss of earnings and a payment of damages for pain and suffering, the payments of benefits and damages are for different and mutually exclusive purposes and cannot, therefore, be double compensation.
      The Government's proposals might possibly be defensible if all the victims of personal injuries received full compensation through the courts. Social security benefits would then be a kind of interim payment that it would be reasonable to deduct from the final compensation payment. However, in practice hardly anyone gets full compensation. Once again, the question of contributory negligence arises. That can result in the victim receiving partial compensation under a number of different heads of damages. If the whole of the benefits are recovered out of that partial compensation, it can mean, for example, that attendance and mobility allowances are recovered from damages that are paid for loss of earnings. That cannot be right.
      The most blatantly unfair aspect of the proposal is the treatment of costs. Whatever justification there may be for recovering social security benefits out of payments of compensation for injury, there can be no conceivable justification for recovering them out of payments of legal costs. Yet the Government not only intend to do that, but actually amended the Bill in Committee to remove any

      1037
      doubt as to their intention. The amendment had the effect of adding to the definition of a "compensation payment" the words:
      "and includes, in particular, so much of the payment as represents reimbursement for costs incurred in procuring it."
      Amendment 6 would remove those words.
      Mr. Bermingham: Has it not always been a fundamental principle of English law that where one succeeds in one's action one is entitled to succeed in one's action for costs? Is my hon. Friend saying that the Government are suggesting that because one is returned to status quo—that is, no costs—they have a lien on the money that one receives and that theoretically one could be put at a loss through winning one's case?
      Mr. Flynn: That is precisely the Government's intention, and it will certainly be the effect of the amendment. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) making a contribution on that point.
      The Minister argued in Committee that there should, in practice, be no problem in that area. The amount to be recovered should fall within the normal payments, excluding costs. That may prove to be true in most cases, but certainly not in every case. There will be cases in which the whole of the compensation payment, including the costs element, will be handed over to the DSS. That is especially likely in cases which take several years to settle, during which a large sum has been paid in benefits and substantial costs have been incurred. In such cases, the victim could end up not only without any compensation, but with a debt for legal fees. A bizarre situation could be created.
      On that point as on many others, the Minister's main argument in Committee was that most compensation payments could not be divided into their constituent elements and, therefore, it was impractical to operate the like from like principle. Again, we appreciate the difficulty. That is probably the reason why no one has tackled this for a long time, but if it is impractical to operate that principle, either generally or in relation to cost—if it cannot be made to work fairly—that is no excuse for allowing this ragbag to go forward, which will work unfairly and unjustly and will breach long-established principles of British justice.
      Mr. Bill Michie: I want to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said about tried and tested traditions and the values that we have held in the past. Anyone who has represented people who have had problems through damage to their bodies caused at, for example, work will know that the compensation for victims of accident and disease is calculated on general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; special damages, which are the financial losses calculated up to date of trial or settlement, including loss of earnings; loss of earning capacity, where, for example, the injury puts the victim at a disadvantage on the open labour market; loss of services, where, for example, a mother is unable to perform household duties to the pre-accident extent; and future financial losses, which are, for example, loss of earnings, pension loss and future expenses. All those have been valued in the past, but many are put in jeopardy by the clause.
      For the past 41 years, the victim has given credit to the compensator for one half of the value of the relevant state
      1038
      benefit for up to five years from the date of accident, but that is only as against the loss of the earning claim. Under the present proposal, victims will have gross statutory sick pay and the prescribed benefit paid for a period of up to five years—depending on the date of settlement—deducted from the total compensation payment, even if the victim recovers compensation on the basis of less than 100 per cent. compensation. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West emphasised. It is not as if the victim receives 100 per cent. compensation and value for money. Under the Government's proposals, all victims will be affected, whether they receive 100 per cent., 5 per cent. or 20 per cent. compensation.
      I could quote many examples, but I have been asked to be brief to allow other hon. Members to contribute. However, I want to refer to the example of a man who is claiming general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in the sum of £20,000. His special damages include loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity of £5,000. They also include loss of future pension for which he receives £2,000. His pre-accident net earnings were £200 a week. He is off work for two years and receives company sick pay of £150 a week for six months and £75 a week for the subsequent six months. He receives no company sick pay for the second year's absence. He returns to work after two years, suffering a partial loss of earnings of £50 a week for two years. He receives statutory sick pay of £1,260 and sickness and invalidity benefit of £5,000. He also receives a reduced earnings allowance of £4,500 and industrial disablement benefit of £4,000 until the date of the settlement five years after the accident. Due to the serious medical condition, the case is not capable of earlier settlement. As the law stands, before the Bill is enacted, that man's full liability would be £39,140. Under the new set-up, when the Bill is enacted, he will receive £32,390.
      As the percentage of compensation is reduced from 100 per cent., the victim receives less. At liability of 25 per cent., the man would receive at least £9,785. Under the new system, he would receive nothing at that level of compensation. It would all he clawed back. We tried to express that problem several times in Committee, but unfortunately to no avail.
      There are many injustices in clause 19. One hundred per cent. state benefits paid to victims partially to replace income will be deducted from total compensation. The compensation will be recovered for even part payments for damages. Even if payments are very small, they will still be clawed back until someone is likely to lose more money by making a claim than by not making one.
      The better-off victim who receives a fairly decent settlement would not claim social security benefit. However, the poor victim who has nothing must claim benefit, but he is penalised when he claims compensation to which, under the old law, he was entitled.
      My colleagues from the Amalgamated Engineering Union have had meetings and discussed these points. We have experience of industrial injuries. The AEU has a great record in that respect. The union is worried that the injustice will affect nearly all compensation claims in the long run. The Government should accept the amendment and, therefore, protect people who are already in a traumatic state as a result of their injuries. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will change their minds and accept the amendment.
      Mr. Bermingham: I had not proposed to intervene in the debate until I saw the purport of the amendments and the purport of the clause. I should declare a passing interest as I am a member of the legal profession. Over the years I have been involved in many civil settlements, particularly when I was a solicitor in Sheffield.
      I do not believe that the Government or the parliamentary draftsmen have any comprehension of how the system of settlement actually works. It is not cut and dried. In the vast majority of agreed settlements, no specific figure is agreed for contributory negligence. We try to find a sum of money to compensate the injured party for the injuries he has suffered. In the old days half the benefits were taken into account in the assessment calculation. However, costs followed the event. If I read the clause correctly—and I hope that the Minister will disabuse me in due course if my interpretation is wrong—all social security benefits will be included in the assessment. Where there has been a finding of contributory negligence, that will lie against the net figure due to the claimant after the deduction for contributory negligence.
      9.15 pm
      If we had been wise enough years ago to follow the Pearson report on no-fault liability, all these problems would have disappeared. The Government are trying to stretch their clammy hands to claw back any compensation. If someone is injured through the fault of another, that person must be the loser. The state will lose not a penny. The old compensation that would have been paid will no longer flow to the injured party.
      The clause even claws back costs. That shows the draftsmens' ignorance and I can say that quite cold bloodedly. They do not seem to understand that in calculating whether to pursue a case the first question that any competent lawyer will ask himself is whether he will succeed in securing some compensation.
      Mr. Bill Michie: Is my hon. Friend saying that somewhere in another place they will have a field day because of the legal technicalities and bad drafting?
      Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend reads my mind perfectly and he knows me well.
      Any competent lawyer will say to himself very gently, "Because of the length of the period of the claims to benefit, it may not be worth pursuing the claim." Any competent lawyer will say that he cannot leave his client in a position where, because of the clawback even against costs awarded, even if the client will receive a notional sum in settlement of the claim—for the sake of argument let us say £20,000, with costs of £5,000—unfortunately, because the client has been on benefit for five years, the DSS—and one is tempted to say that the Department is aptly named —will receive all the £25,000 in payment. Effectively the victim will be £5,000 out of pocket simply for pursuing the claim. That is ludicrous. The Government must reconsider.
      I will digress a little now because I have an interest in these matters as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. What will happen to the contributions made to victims of disasters such as Piper Alpha or Hillsborough where many people on Merseyside and from St. Helens were killed or injured? There may be trusts that do not have charitable status and money may be paid out. Will the DSS try to
      1040
      claw back money paid to people who have suffered grievous loss through no fault of their own? Will the Government take their cut from the tragedy?
      Mr. Stanley Orme: That is highly unlikely because of the emotional attitude of people throughout the country.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: Oh, I do not know.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend may disagree with me there. However, does my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) agree that benefits or payments that are decided and compensation that is set by judges are different from funds connected to major disasters to which my hon. Friend has just referred? There are two standards in our nation at the moment: one for people who are affected by major disasters and will, with the help of their solicitors, quite rightly gain compensation; and one for people who, in industry, lose an arm, leg or hand and are up against a scale of payments which will be charged against the benefits that he or she receives.
      Mr. Bermingham: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. In a major disaster the heart of the nation goes out to the victims and the nation seeks to give generously. I seek a cold-blooded assurance from the Minister tonight that the generosity of the nation will not be used to compensate the cost to the Government in benefit. That would be morally indefensible. I ask the Minister quite bluntly for that assurance tonight on behalf of those people, in Merseyside and elsewhere, who have lost loved ones or have suffered grievous harm. If the Minister wants to intervene and give that assurance I shall be delighted to give way. Many in the nation seek, and have sought, that assurance but, unfortunately, it has not always been forthcoming. In such circumstances, rule books should occasionally be torn up.
      Mr. Scott: I was going to deal with the matter in my concluding remarks, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it, it might be acceptable and sensible to get it out of the way. The clause deals with compensation payments made by, or on behalf of, a person who is liable for an injury. It has nothing to do with charitable payments. Anyone who has seen the response of this country to the Hillsborough tragedy and others that, alas, we have seen recently will know that those are totally different circumstances. The funds relating to such tragedies have nothing to do with the clause.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening in that way. Perhaps I should put the question more bluntly. Of course, compensation payments ultimately fall due to the families of those involved in the tragedy who are either injured or dead. If the Minister is assuring me that the Department will have no claim against payments paid out of the Hillsborough disaster fund, I will accept it. The Minister nods, but let us have it straight for the record so that we know exactly where we stand. Will the Minister intervene again and confirm that there will be no claims for the recovery of benefit against money paid from the Hillsborough trust—whether or not it is a charitable trust? I recognise that there is a difference in law between a charitable and non-charitable trust.
      Mr. Scott: The answer is an unequivocal yes.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I am sure that it will bring some crumb of comfort to those of my constituents who have been grievously injured.
      I shall end on a practical note. Have the Minister and his officials cared to think for a moment about the effect of the unamended clause on settlement and damages claims in the courts of our land? It would not be sensible in future for lawyers—either solicitors or counsel—to settle at the current rates of settlement. The clause effectively encourages lawyers to argue further over the degree of contributory negligence, because that will become a material argument in the future. In the past on many occasions settlements have been amicable. It also means that, in future, those who act on behalf of the plaintiff —this may affect my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme)—particularly in industrial injury claims in non-disaster cases, will no longer allow their clients to settle for the existing sums of money. Those who appear on behalf of the plantiff seek to compensate the injured and return them to the state they were in before the injury. If, in the future, the Department of Social Security is to recover even greater sums, the general level of damages will have to rise.
      The Minister and those who advise him have failed to understand that the premiums paid to insurers will equally have to rise to meet the anticipated increased claims. They have failed to realise that premiums have to be paid by the employers and that is an additional cost which forces up the price of the product being made and makes it less competitive.
      I know the Minister well. He is an honourable man and I am sure that the clause is not the product of his mind because he is too decent. Those who drafted the clause have not thought it through because it does not go far enough. Even if amended, the clause will effectively increase the cost of products in industry and make us less competitive. We, the general public and the citizens of the United Kingdom will be the losers. This is another example of dogma leading us towards penury.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall delay the House for one moment to clarify one aspect of the clause.
      First, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his statement on the Hillsborough tragedy. The item came up on "The News at One" today, and there was a suggestion that the social security department in Sheffield was unsure as to the exact position.
      When we were debating the Bill in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point that the object of the clause was to ensure that nobody received double compensation, particularly since social security benefit is paid from public money. I do not quarrel with that. When awarding damages—particularly in cases of medical negligence, although this could equally apply to injury compensation—the payment is made some time, even years, after the event. Will the judge who awards the damages be aware of the social security benefits that have been paid to the person who is to receive the damages, or will he or she presume that what is being awarded is from the date of settlement? Is this really double compensation, or does the compensation for damages given by the judge run from the end of the case, so that the period during which the case was being heard is not necessarily covered by the damages?
      1042
      I suggest to my hon. Friend that if, as he appears to be arguing, the compensation runs from the date of the injury, it would seem reasonable that the judge should be presented with a figure for the amount of social security benefit already paid to the victim, so that he can allow for it when deciding the final figure that he is prepared to offer in compensation for damages.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Scott: I listened with interest and respect to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), because he knows something about this area and is a practitioner of the law. He accused the Government of not having thought this through and of having got it wrong. I do not believe that that is right; nor did the National Audit Office, which looked into this, nor did the Public Accounts Committee, which also looked into it; nor have the courts, which have considered this matter, come to a different conclusion from the Government's. They have all come to a view that reflects that of Sir William Beveridge, who stated in his report:
      "An injured person should not have the same need met twice over. He should get benefit at once without prejudice to any alternative remedy, but if the alternative remedy proves in fact to be available, he should not in the end get more from two sources together than he would have got from one alone".
      That is the principle on which we worked when producing the scheme and when seeking one that was relatively simple to operate.
      To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), we shall of course give the courts details of benefits paid up to the date of settlement or award. I shall return to that point later. One reason why much of our discussion in Committee was unsoundly based and why these amendments would have a perverse outcome is that 99 per cent. of settlements take place outside the courts and only 1 per cent. of cases are considered in court. I believe that someone was unkind enough to use the words "horse trading" to describe the negotiations to settle compensation claims. Those engaged in such negotiations would know perfectly well the amount of benefit that would have been available.
      The two amendments deal with matters that we discussed in Committee. As far as legal costs are concerned, in schedule 3 we have specifically provided that if, by any chance, someone on legal aid found that his legal aid costs were more than the compensation payment so that the victim was left with a bill, the Department of Social Security would meet any outstanding amounts. It would be intolerable if a very poor person, having resorted to legal aid, was left with a bill to pay. That would be unlikely, but if it happens we have made it perfectly clear in the schedule that the problem would be dealt with in the way I have described.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does not the Minister accept that many industrial claims are brought in the name of the trade union, which employs solicitors and covers the costs, because they are its costs? That is one of the benefits of trade union membership. So there is a distinction between a litigant in that position and a litigant in receipt of legal aid.
      I think the Minister has missed the point that I was trying to make. Is he saying that the benefit accruing to the union when recovering its costs on behalf of its member is in some way to be laid at the door of the claimant who succeeds in obtaining damages? That would be appalling.
      Mr. Scott: I am not familiar with the arrangements between unions and their members for these matters. Unions have funds and their members pay dues in part to cover the costs of this sort of action. If people have a legal aid bill or have employed private lawyers, because so few cases are determined by the courts and there are no heads of agreement on what a settlement is, it is difficult to break down—
      Mr. Bermingham: Does not the Minister accept that, even in a friendly case which is settled out of court—a case that does not involve a minor, which would require court approval for a settlement—the successful plaintiff's costs are always paid by the defendant? Therefore, considerable amounts of money that do not belong to the plaintiff become liable to the charge that the Minister seeks to impose in this clause.
      Mr. Scott: We have taken the view, which I believe is right, that the benefit paid should be recovered from the settlement. That is what a number of independent people who have looked at the issue said was the right way to go about it, and we are following their advice.
      I do not want to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but it was apparent from what the hon. Gentleman said about extra costs and so on that he has not read the Touche Ross report about how the costs are broken down. I do not accept every figure in the Touche Ross report, but the matter was carefully considered. The Government did not take a leap in the dark. Only after looking carefully at the costs and at the advice that we received from a variety of sources did we decide that this was a fair and sensible approach.
      At the moment we have a muddle. The 1948 legislation provided for some offsets against a list of benefits, but the courts have decided that, on a number of other benefits that have been introduced since then, 100 per cent. should be recovered from any compensation payment. That applies not just up to the date of the settlement or award, as we are providing here, but to future entitlement to benefit which can be offset against the settlement that has been made. On balance, some 80 per cent. of victims receiving compensation could find themselves at least as well off as before or even better off, because there is no offsetting of future benefits against this. At the moment benefits are offset for five years, and sometimes ahead of that. On average, 80 per cent. of cases are settled within two and a half years—a pattern that I would expect to continue. In those circumstances, many people will find themselves better off than they would be under the existing system.
      The vast majority of these cases are dealt with out of court, with only 1 per cent. being decided by a judge. I think that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) recognised that in some circumstances there may be difficulties in matching heads of damages awards and the payment of benefit. That is a fair understatement of the real problems that face the Department when it has to make great inquiries into the various heads of damages that have been awarded. But the hon. Member for St. Helens, South must know that negotiations continue and the victim is offered a global sum to settle. No calcuation of how that figure has been arrived at is stated. That would be impossible because of the informality.
      I do not want to delay the House unduly, but both amendments would be perverse in their effects. They
      1044
      would undermine the simplicity and the underlying fairness of the system that we are introducing, endorsed by Beveridge, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the courts. In those circumstances, I shall in due course be advising the House to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: The Minister should not use Beveridge and others to justify this move by the Government to reclaim benefits from people who receive only a small amount of benefit in any case. The hon. Gentleman says that he is not sure what the trade unions do. My trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, has spent a great deal of money representing people injured in industry and elsewhere in reclaiming benefits. It has to go to court to do so. Amounts are determined by the judge on the basis on whether the person has lost an arm, a leg, a hand or whatever. We then see other people getting £1 million even though they have not lost any faculty. I assure the Minister that people regard this move by the Government as a gross injustice.
      Mr. Scott: I do not agree. Of course anybody who takes any notice of these things will know that there may be a capricious element in the compensation that people get for injury or disease, depending on the circumstances. I cannot put all that to rights in this legislation. I can only follow up what Beveridge recommended. That could not be agreed at the end of the war, but others of great authority have endorsed the principle that people are certainly entitled to benefit in the short term, when they need money immediately to pay their own and their families living expenses. But when, finally, a person is judged to have been guilty, or has accepted liability, the taxpayer, having provided interim support, should not be left with the compensation bill. I believe that that is an unassailable principle. It has been strongly endorsed, and I invite the House to reject the two amendments.
      Mr. Flynn: The Minister persists in quoting Beveridge, so I must quote back at him Beveridge's conclusion that it was not possible to do more than raise these questions. Beveridge reached no conclusions whatever; he simply stated the problems. We all agree that one of his recommendations was that there should not be any question of double compensation at anyone's expense—and certainly not at the expense of the social security system. But the Minister has again failed to make the case in answer to our point that, in respct of contributory negligence, there is no question of over-compensation unless the amount is beyond what is decided as the gross amount. If damages are set at £10,000, and the figure is reduced by any amount because of contributory negligence, that is no excuse for trying to bridge the gap by taking away money due in social security benefit.
      There is another point that is very revealing. When an event such as the Hillsborough disaster occurs, we all feel bereaved. While we share the grief of the families involved in that, it would be foolish to ignore the tens of thousands of individuals injured just as grievously elsewhere. People just as unfortunate, just as poor and just as badly hurt will lose social security payments in a way that has never been known before.
      I am very grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who rightly pointed out the problems that will occur as a result of this legislation. Of course the amendments that we are

      1045
      proposing are not enough. A whole battery of changes were proposed in Committee. Had they been accepted, they would have improved the Bill greatly and softened its damaging effect. The Minister and the Department are trying to mix two elements, two heads of damages, which cannot be mixed. They are trying to achieve a fusion. While fusion may well have been achieved at room temperature in another area, the fusion that is being attempted here will produce a cocktail so volatile that it will explode in their faces.
      We intend to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 277.

      Division No. 180]

      [9.43

      AYES

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Gould, Bryan

      Ashton, Joe

      Graham, Thomas

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Barron, Kevin

      Hardy, Peter

      Battle, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Home Robertson, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Hood, Jimmy

      Bradley, Keith

      Howells, Geraint

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Janner, Greville

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Kilfedder, James

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clay, Bob

      Lamond, James

      Cohen, Harry

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Corbett, Robin

      Lewis, Terry

      Cousins, Jim

      Livsey, Richard

      Crowther, Stan

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cryer, Bob

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cummings, John

      McAllion, John

      Cunlitte, Lawrence

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dalyell, Tam

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Darling, Alistair

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McKelvey, William

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

      Madden, Max

      Dixon, Don

      Marek, Dr John

      Dobson, Frank

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martlew, Eric

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Maxton, John

      Eadie, Alexander

      Meacher, Michael

      Eastham, Ken

      Meale, Alan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michael, Alun

      Fatchett, Derek

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foster, Derek

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foulkes, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Fraser, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Nellist, Dave

      Galbraith, Sam

      O'Brien, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      George, Bruce

      Parry, Robert

      1046

      Patchett, Terry

      Strang, Gavin

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Turner, Dennis

      Prescott, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wall, Pat

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Walley, Joan

      Richardson, Jo

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Robertson, George

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Rogers, Allan

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winnick, David

      Short, Clare

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

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

      Wray, Jimmy

      Soley, Clive

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Stott, Roger

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Alexander, Richard

      Couchman, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Allason, Rupert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Amess, David

      Curry, David

      Amos, Alan

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Day, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dicks, Terry

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baldry, Tony

      Dover, Den

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dunn, Bob

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Evennett, David

      Benyon, W.

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fallon, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Favell, Tony

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forth, Eric

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Franks, Cecil

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Freeman, Roger

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      French, Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Fry, Peter

      Bright, Graham

      Gale, Roger

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

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gill, Christopher

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Burns, Simon

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Burt, Alistair

      Gorst, John

      Butcher, John

      Gow, Ian

      Butler, Chris

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gregory, Conal

      Carrington, Matthew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Cash, William

      Ground, Patrick

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hague, William

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Harris, David

      Conway, Derek

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hayward, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      1047

      Heddle, John

      Mudd, David

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hill, James

      Neubert, Michael

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Holt, Richard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howard, Michael

      Norris, Steve

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

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Paice, James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irvine, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Irving, Charles

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jack, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Jackson, Robert

      Raff an, Keith

      Janman, Tim

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Redwood, John

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Key, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rost, Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knox, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lang, Ian

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Latham, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shersby, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sims, Roger

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lilley, Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sumberg, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Summerson, Hugo

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maples, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marland, Paul

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Marlow, Tony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Tredinnick, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Trippier, David

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mellor, David

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Walden, George

      Mills, Iain

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Moate, Roger

      Ward, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Watts, John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Wheeler, John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Whitney, Ray

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wilshire, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Wolfson, Mark

      1048

      Wood, Timothy

      Woodcock, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 16, line 44, at end insert—
      "'compensator", "victim" and "intended recipient" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above;'.
      No. 11, in page 16, line 44, at end insert—
      "'costs", in relation to proceedings in Scotland, means expenses;'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Schedule 3

      RECOVERY OF SUMS EQUIVALENT TO BENEFIT FROM COMPENSATION PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS ETC: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 30, leave out line 38.
      No. 89, in page 33, line 18, at end insert—
      'Structured settlements
      6A.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

      (a) in final settlement of a person's claim, an agreement is entered into—

      (i) for the making of periodical payments (whether of an income or capital nature) to or in respect of the victim; or

      (ii) for the making of such payments and one or more lump sum payments; and

      (b) apart from this paragraph, those payments would fall to be regarded for the purposes of the recoupment provisions as compensation payments.

      (2) Where this paragraph applies, the recoupment provisions (other than this paragraph) shall have effect on the following assumptions, that is to say—

      (a) the relevant period in the case of the compensator in question shall be taken to end (if it has not previously done so) on the day of settlement;

      (b) the compensator in question shall be taken—

      (i) to have been liable to make on that day a single compensation payment of the amount referred to in section 19(1)(a) of this Act (reduced or increased in accordance with such of the recoupment provisions as would have applied in the case of a payment on that day); and

      (ii) to have made from that single payment a relevant deduction of an amount equal to it; and

      (c) the payments under the agreement referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above that shall be taken to be exempt payments.

      (3) The intended recipient shall not by virtue of anything in this paragraph become entitled to be paid any sum, whether by the compensator or the Secretary of State, and if on a review or appeal under paragraph 15 or 17 below it appears that the amount paid by a compensator in pursuance of this paragraph either exceeded or was less than it ought to have been, then—

      (a) any excess shall be repaid to the compensator instead of to the intended recipient; but

      (b) any deficiency shall be paid to the Secretary of State by the intended recipient.

      (4) Where any further compensation payment falls to be made to or in respect of the victim otherwise than under the agreement in question, sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall be disregarded for the purpose of determining the end of the relevant period in relation to that further payment.
      (5) In any case where—

      (a) the person making the periodical payments (the "secondary party") does so in pursuance of arrangements entered into with another (as in a case where an insurance company purchases an annuity for the victim from another such company), and

      1049

      (b) apart from those arrangements, that other ("the primary party") would have been regarded as the compensator,

      then for the purposes of the recoupment provisions, the primary party shall be regarded as the compensator and the secondary party shall not be so regarded.
      (6) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether any periodical payments would fall to be regarded as compensation payments, section 19(4)(a) of this Act shall be disregarded.
      (7) In this paragraph "the day of settlement" means—

      (a) if the agreement referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above is approved by a court, the day on which that approval is given; and

      (b) in any other case, the day on which that agreement is entered into.'.

      No. 92, in page 34, line 21, leave out
      'deduction from, or payment out of,'
      and insert
      `relevant deduction or payment in connection with'.
      No. 93, in page 34, line 27, leave out 'withhold from the' and insert
      'either—
      (i) withhold from such a'.
      No. 94, in page 34, line 28, leave out 'and' and insert `or
      (ii) make such a payment into court before the certificate of total benefit has been issued to him; and'.
      No. 95, in page 34, line 32, after 'person,' insert
      'making a payment into court'.
      No. 96, in page 34, line 33, leave out '(2)(a) above, he shall' and insert
      `(2)(a)(i) above—
      (a) he shall, at the time when he makes that payment,'.
      No. 97, in page 34, line 34, after 'and', insert `(b)'.
      No. 98, in page 34, leave out lines 36 and 37 and—
      `but no person shall be entitled by virtue of this sub-paragraph to the payment out of court of any amount which has not in fact been paid into court.
      (3A) Where a payment into court is made as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) above, the compensator—

      (a) shall apply for the certificate of total benefit no later than the day on which the payment into court is made; and

      (b) shall become liable to make the relevant payment as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above, notwithstanding that the relevant deduction has not been made.

      (3B) Where any such payment into court as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above is paid out of court to or for the other party to the action within the initial period, then, as respects the compensator in question, the relevant period whall be taken to have ended on the day on which the payment into court was made.
      (3C) In sub-paragraph (3B) above "the initial period" means the period of 21 days following the making of the payment into court, but rules of court may make provision varying the length of that period.
      (3D) Rules of court may make provision regulating or prescribing the practice and procedure to be followed in relation to such payments into court as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above.'.
      No. 28, in page 35, line 18, leave out
      'requests the Secretary of State to furnish him with'
      and insert
      `applies to the Secretary of State in accordance with paragraph 3 above for'.
      No. 29, in page 35, line 20, leave out 'comply with that request' and insert
      `furnish him with such a certificate'.
      No. 30, in page 35, line 22, leave out 'request' and insert 'application'.
      No. 31, in page 35, line 26, leave out 'request' and insert 'application'.
      No. 32, in page 35, line 36, leave out 'the relevant'.
      No. 12, in page 37, line 8, after '1981', insert
      'or section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982'.
      No. 33, in page 38, line 15, leave out 'the victim' and insert 'a person'.
      No. 34, in page 38, line 17, leave out 'the victim' and insert 'a person'.
      No. 90, in page 38, line 44, leave out 'the amount so certified' and insert 'that relevant payment'.
      No. 91, in page 40, line 21, after 'Where', insert
      immediately before the making of the compensation payment,'.
      No. 13, in page 41, line 2, at end insert—
      'Modification of Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985
      22. In section 31 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (vesting of debtor's estate at date of sequestration) in subsection (8) after the words "subsection (9) below" there shall be inserted the words "and to paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Act 1989.".'. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Schedule 4

      EMPLOYMENT-RELATED SCHEMES FOR PENSIONS OR OTHER BENEFITS: EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN
      Mr. John Watts: I beg to move, amendment No. 62, in page 41, line 45, at end insert
      `(h) any permitted difference on the basis of the sex of members, in the level of benefit payable from any employment-related benefit scheme which has an equal normal pension age for men and women which is lower than 65, between the ages of 60 and 65. Any difference in the level of benefit payable shall be a permitted difference if it does not exceed an amount equal to the basic state pension in force under the state scheme from time to time.'.
      The Bill implements a European directive requiring equal treatment for men and women in pension schemes. However—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Mr. Watts: Equal treatement does not extend to equal retirement ages, so the discrimination against men in the state retirement scheme and in other pension schemes, where it exists, will be allowed to continue. However, many enlightened employers, such as the Mars group, an important employer in my constituency, have followed, a policy of equal retirement ages for men and women and equal benefits for equal lengths of service.
      I shall illustrate the difficulty which has arisen from the way in which the Bill implements the directive. If a man and a woman join a company at the age of 25 and retire at the age of 55 after 30 years service and both have a final salary of £15,000 a year, under the terms of the company scheme both would be entitled to an ultimate pension of £7,650 a year, made up of £5,383 from the company scheme and £2,267 from the state retirement pension. However, retiring at the age of 55, neither would qualify for state retirement pension, so it is company practice to pay a supplement of an amount equivalent to the state retirement pension to its pensioners until they reach state retirement age. That means that a woman would receive that payment for five years until she reached the age of

      1051
      sixty and a man would receive that payment for 10 years until he reached the age of 65 and was able to claim the state retirement pension.
      As I understand it, the way in which the Bill enacts the directive would make such payments to the man between the ages of 60 and 65 unlawful because the woman would no longer be receiving that supplement as she would be in receipt of the state retirement pension. That has considerable consequences, and there are only two ways in which companies operating integrated schemes with common retirement ages would be able to comply with the law. They could remove the supplementary payments paid before state retirement age, but that would be a grave disincentive to people taking early retirement, and the effects on someone whose pension was based on a relatively low salary would be quite catastrophic.
      If someone had a finishing salary of £8,000 a year, more than half the total benefit would be removed until they reached state retirement pension age. Alternatively, these schemes could continue to pay the supplement, but they would have to pay it to women between the ages of 60 and 65 so that women retiring after the same length of service and on the same salary would receive a total pension income of £2,267 a year more than their male colleagues. That is no equal treatment, and it cannot be what was in the minds of those in Brussels who drafted the directive.
      This has been a matter of correspondence both between myself and my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department and between the company and officials. The company has taken opinion fom a very learned counsel and, equally, the Department has consulted its own lawyers. The lawyers have come to different interpretations of the directive and how it should be implemented. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department for the diligence they have shown in considering the matter.
      I am not a lawyer, so I do not have to form my own view about which legal advice is correct. But even if I concede that the advice the Department has obtained from its lawyers is correct on this occasion, I still urge my hon. Friend to accept the amendment because the consequences I have described amount to a ridiculous piece of Euro-nonsense. If those consequences are what the Eurocrats in Brussels intended, the Government should be prepared to accept the amendment to ensure continuing true equality of treatment and should be prepared to be taken to the European Court by the unelected bunch of bureaucrats sitting on the other side of the English channel.
      If we were to be forced to change our law to allow that absurd circumstance to apply, there would be outrage in the House and the country. It would highlight the way in which the powers of Brussels have encroached on the prerogatives of the House and in this case, as in many others, on basic common sense. I urge my hon. Friend to accept the amendment and, if necessary, to have the courage to accept the consequences of the big stick being wagged from Brussels.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I appreciate that the issue my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) has raised is of great importance for Mars, the leading employer in his constituency, and for his constituents who work there,
      1052
      and I congratulate him on the clarity with which he explained the problem that now confronts not merely Mars but other companies that run integrated pension schemes.
      The particular point raised by the amendment concerns the application of the equal treatment requirements in schedule 4 to the Bill to integrated occupational pension schemes. Ironically, those schemes have already gone a considerable way towards the adoption of equal treatment for men and women, and I applaud them for that. They have introduced at 60 a common pension age for both men and women for pensions payable under the scheme. However, in calculating the benefits payable, they treat men and women differently between their 60th and 65th birthdays. Men are paid what is known as a bridging pension to compensate for the fact that, unlike women, they are not entitled to state retirement pension for that period, as my hon. Friend has explained.
      The amendment seeks to ensure that schemes such as the Mars scheme will be able to continue to pay bridging pensions to men between 60 and 65 after January 1993, when the schedule comes into effect, but will also be able to restrict the amount of any bridging pension to the current rate of basic state retirement pension. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend, as he knows, and to those schemes which would stand to benefit from his amendment, but I cannot, I am afraid, recommend to the House that it be incorporated in the Bill, and at the end of my speech I shall be inviting my hon. Friend to withdraw it.
      I shall not give all the arguments and background to the position, as the hour is late, but I shall write to my hon. Friend again because he deserves the fullest explanation, as do his constituents and Mars, which has taken a leading part in arguing on his side of the case. I will explain that, subject to certain specified exceptions, the directive requires the adoption of the principle of equal treatment, which means that there can be no discrimination on the basis of sex, either directly or indirectly, in the provisions of occupational pension schemes, and it refers specifically to three areas. These are, first, the scope of the schemes and conditions of access, secondly, the obligation to contribute and the calculation of contributions and thirdly, the calculation of benefits and the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to them.
      Paragraph 2(4)(d) of schedule 4, introduced in Committee, already makes use of the permitted derogation to permit schemes to continue to provide different ages at which pensions come into payment to men and women. This is, of course, of no benefit to the schemes which my hon. Friend's amendment would assist. They already have an equal pension age for men and women. The exception applies to pensionable ages for the granting of pensions.
      We do not believe that the payment of a higher pension to a man for five years from age 60 comes within the definition of the exception, nor, if a bridging pension is taken to be an arrangement separate from other pensions payable under the scheme to both men and women, can it escape from being a benefit restricted to a single sex.
      As my hon. Friend suggested, it would certainly have been easier for the Government to adopt a wider interpretation of the directive, but to do so would have been neither wise nor in the long-term interest of the schemes.

      1053
      We are unwilling to lay ourselves open to proceedings in Luxembourg that we have failed to comply with the treaty of Rome if we are sure that we are bound to lose. Equally, we would like to protect schemes from proceedings instituted, as it is likely they would be, either by the Commission or by women between 60 and 65, who would rightly submit that they were being treated by their scheme less favourably than men because their scheme had calculated and was paying them a pension on a basis inferior to those of their male colleagues.
      I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument and with the situation in which Mars and similar pensions schemes find themselves. I can assure him, however, that we have looked long and hard at the exact wording of the exception and it is with regret that we have concluded that bridging pensions in integrated schemes are beyond the scope of the derogation.
      To adopt my hon. Friend's amendment would have the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the treaty and leave both the Government and individual schemes vulnerable to an unfavourable judgment by the European Court. Although I am sorry to have to ask my hon. Friend, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment now.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Don't. Die first.
      Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the tone of his reply, but not entirely for its content. I realise that he would make both himself and me rather unpopular with hon. Members of all parties if he had replied to me at much greater length. I should be grateful—as I am sure the House would be—and would find it helpful if my hon. Friend replied at greater length in writing as he has offered to do, and if he would place that reply in the Library of the House so that every hon. Member can see the facts of the Government's position.
      In view of the conciliatory tone of my hon. Friend's reply, despite its disappointing content, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
      Amendments made:
      No. 56, in page 42, line 25 leave out 'relevant' and insert 'service-related'.
      No. 57, in page 42, line 28 leave out 'relevant' and insert 'service-related'.
      No. 58, in page 45, line 29 leave out 'relevant' and insert 'service-related'.
      No. 59, in page 45, line 35 leave out 'an exempt' and insert 'a limited'.
      No. 60, in page 45, line 36 leave out -"'exempt' and insert "'limited'
      No. 61, in page 45, line 48 leave out "'relevant' and insert "`service-related'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Schedule 6

      PRE-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 8, in page 54, line 7, leave out
      'For section 4(3) of the principal Act' and insert—
      '(1) In section 4 of the principal Act, for subsection (3)'.
      No. 9, in page 54, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2) In subsection (6C) of that section (amount of secondary Class 1 contribution) for the words "the amount of a secondary Class 1 contribution" there shall be substituted the words "where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable, the amount of that contribution".'.
      No. 35, in page 55, line 18, at end insert—
      1054
      '16A. In sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 to that Act (constitution of medical appeal tribunals) for the words "to the panel mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)" there shall be substituted the words "chairman of a tribunal under sub-paragraph (4)(e)".'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Clause 25

      REGULATIONS AND ORDERS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 7, in page 20, line 26, after 'sections', insert
      ( Amendments relating to primary Class 1 contributions).'.
      No. 37, in page 20, line 26, after 'sections', insert
      '(Abolition of earnings rule etc)'.
      No. 52, in page 20, line 26, after '3', insert
      '( Benefits for women widowed before 11 th April 1988 )'. — [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Clause 26

      REGULATIONS AND ORDERS: GENERAL. PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 38, in page 21, line 15, at end insert—
      '(dd) the first regulations made under section 59B(7) of the principal Act (retirement allowance) by virtue of paragraph 8(6) of Schedule ( Abolition of earnings rule etc) to this Act, or
      (de) the first regulations made under section 2 of the Social Security Act 1988 (reduced earnings allowance etc) by virtue of paragraph 8(7) of that Schedule, or'. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Clause 27

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 53, in page 21, line 45 at end insert—
      "'Commissioner" has the same meaning as it has in the principal Act;'. — [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Clause 30

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 54, in page 22, line 40 after '3' insert
      '( Benefits for women widowed before 11 th April 1988)'.
      No. 81, in page 22, line 40, leave out '13, 14, 15' and insert `to'.
      No. 82, in page 22, line 41, at end insert—
      '(aa) Schedule—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Schedule 7

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 59, line 9, leave out from beginning to first 'A' in line 13 and insert `for the words following paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words—
      "and, subject to the provisions of this Act, he shall become so entitled on the day on which he attains pensionable age and his entitlement shall continue throughout his life."
      (3A) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
      "(1A)'.
      No. 40, in page 59, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
      '(9) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a woman's entitlement to a Category B retirement pension shall commence on the day on which the conditions of entitlement become satisfied in her case and shall continue throughout her life.'.
      No. 41, in page 59, line 34, leave out paragraph 5—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Schedule 8

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 67, line 16, column 3, at end insert—

      `In section 4(6F), the words "primary or".'.

      No. 42, in page 67, line 19, column 3, at end insert—

      'In section 14(6), the words following paragraph (c).

      In section 15(6)(a), the words "but have not retired from regular employment".'.

      No. 43, in page 67, column 3, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—

      `Section 27(3), (4) and (5).

      In section 28(1)(a), the words "and has retired from regular employment".

      Section 29(5)(a).

      In section 30, subsection (I), in subsection (3), in paragraph (a), the words "retired from regular employment or has otherwise" and the words "retired or" and subsection (6)(a).'.

      No. 47, in page 68, line 10, column 3, at end insert—

      `In Schedule 4, paragraph 39(a).'.

      No. 48, in page 68, line 29, column 3, at end insert—

      `In Schedule 4, paragraph 11.'.

      No. 21, in page 68, line 35, column 3, at end insert—

      In section 41(1), the words "section 30(1) of this Act and to".

      Section 48(2) and (3).'.

      No. 45, in page 67, line 50, column 3, at end insert —

      'and "30(1 )".'.

      No. 46, in page 67, line 51, column 3. at beginning insert—

      'In section 8(1), the words "who has retired from regular employment".

      Section 11.'.

      No. 49, in page 68, line 39, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 63(1)(a)(ii).'.

      No. 50, in page 68, line 46, column 3, leave out `paragraph 3(3)(c)' and insert—

      in paragraph 3, in subparagraph (3)(b), the words "30(1)", subparagraph (3)(c), subparagraph (3)(c), subparagraph (4)(b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.'.

      No. 51, in page 68, line 51, at end insert—
      '1988 c. 7. Social Security Act 1988. Section 2(9).'—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Order for Third Reading read. — [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      10.16 pm
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      This is a relatively short Bill but it covers a great deal of ground and brings in some welcome and necessary changes—changes improved and extended by Government amendments and those brought forward by Opposition Members which the Government have been persuaded to adopt—not often enough, I am sure the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs Beckett) will tell us shortly for the full satisfaction of Labour Members, but often enough, I hope, for hon. Members on both sides to feel that the time spent in Committee was worthwhile.
      The Bill will reform the structure of national insurance contributions, removing the steps that were a heavy disincentive for employees to increase the hours they worked over the lower earnings limit, and giving a saving for nearly all class 1 contributors of up to £3 a week.
      The Bill will also abolish the earnings rule, removing the restriction on people enjoying their pensions while contributing to the economy and their own incomes. About 2,500 workers over pension age will be affected immediately, but it is over the coming years that the full impact will be felt, as those coming up to 60 or 65 will no longer have to decide whether to make the declaration that they are giving up work to secure their pension, thereby in effect writing themselves out of the job market.
      The Bill also applies equal treatment in occupational pensions-no discrimination between men and women as regards the right to join a scheme, liability or entitlement

      1057
      to pay contributions, rate of contributions or, as we discussed when debating the last amendment, entitlement to benefits.
      Particularly welcome, I believe, is the clause raising the upper age limit for mobility allowance from 75 to 80. The Bill will also put liability for injury—again, as we have debated tonight—on a reasonable and equitable footing, with the insurer obliged to reimburse the state for the cost of the plaintiff's benefits while he was off sick as well as the plaintiff for the injury itself.
      The Bill also introduces the new concept of employment trial for those who have been out of work for more than six months as an encouragement to broaden the range of jobs that they feel able to consider. But the central feature of the Bill is the change that we have debated extensively today—the requirement that in future every unemployed person, as a condition of receiving benefit, should be actively seeking work.
      Most unemployed people do this on their own initiative —because they want to get back into a job—but a minority do not, as some Opposition Members have conceded. But, they say, the present rules are strong enough to deal with that minority. My hon. Friend the Minister of State showed conclusively that that comfortable assumption is wrong. The current rules are sufficient to ensure that people are available for work and have drawn attention to that fact by signing on, but not to do any more.
      That is unfair to those in work, many of whom are not well off, who pay the taxes and contributions which finance unemployment benefits. It is unfair also to those who are without work but who are assiduously seeking it. It is unfair in the long run to the individuals themselves and their families, and it is unfair to the nation at large when there are growing numbers of unfilled vacancies.
      Opposition Members will say that the unemployed will be pressed into a mechanical, useless and soul-destroying round of chasing after jobs that are not there or are unattainable. Emphatically that is not so. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State made absolutely clear, the purpose is to provide encouragement, incentive and, indeed, where necessary in some cases, pressure on those without jobs to do what the majority of unemployed people already do willingly and on their own initiative.
      Local staff will be required to know the local job market and to judge what is realistic, fair and reasonable for an individual in terms of his or her age, health and experience.
      Mr. Battle: Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will also price people into work by insisting that unemployed people accept a job at whatever low rate they are offered, regardless of whether they can live on it or not?
      Mr. Lloyd: The going rate will no longer be a reason for people to refuse work, but, of course, it will be one of the many considerations that benefit officers will take into account, as my hon. Friend made clear.
      The "actively seeking work" change is fully justified in simple justice. There is no better time to make it than now, when there is an increasing range of jobs to be had and the most severe constraint on the nation's further economic growth is that so many of them remain empty. I urge the House to give this excellent Bill a Third Reading.
      10.20 pm
      Mrs. Beckett: The main impact of this year's Social Security Bill will stem—and is intended to stem, as the Minister accepted in his final remarks—from clauses 8, 9 and 10. Those clauses have been explained—I will not use the word "justified"—by the Government on the basis of their reaction, in the main, to a survey of the London labour market which they argue is supported by other labour market surveys, although many who are familiar with the detail of all those reports would contest that view.
      One could argue in any event that the London labour market is not typical, but let us not worry about that, because the Government did not. We acknowledge that it was reported in that survey that some unemployed people in London had not looked for work in the previous week and that some has not looked for work in the previous four weeks. On that one feature of that one report the central part of the legislation seems to have been based. All the other aspects of the report, all the questions that it left unanswered and all the myths that it laid have been completely ignored.
      Let us begin by taking those who said that they had not looked for work in the previous week or weeks. They were not asked in that survey, as they had been in others, why they had not looked for work at that time. When the Secretary of State referred at the Tory party conference to the number who seemed to be in that position, he failed to mention—no doubt through an oversight—that about 250,000 were sick or disabled. Even those who do not come into that category have indicated in other surveys that if they had ceased looking for work every week, it was due to a realistic assessment, based on immediate and direct experience, of their chances of getting a job in the current labour market conditions.
      The Government have suggested, as did the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State a moment ago, that because labour market conditions have eased the provisions of the Bill are needed to ensure that those who have despaired and, because of their experience, have ceased to seek work are put in touch with the eased market. Other labour market surveys show that people who at one time ceased actively to pursue work every week step up their job search of their own volition as soon as it becomes apparent that more jobs may be available. That evidence supports the view that clause 7 is not needed to encourage an active search for work where there is any point in that search for the individual.
      The survey on which the legislation is based showed that employers are reluctant to hire the long-term unemployed even when they have suitable skills or experience. Nothing is being done about that in the legislation. The survey also showed that unemployed people do not have unrealistic expectations of levels of pay and that they are not ruling themselves out because they are seeking wages which employers cannot or are not prepared to offer. Yet clause 9 is based on the assumption that that is happening.
      Labour market surveys show, not surprisingly, that those with family responsibilities look harder for work than those without them. Yet under clause 10 people with family responsibilities will see all rights to any income, even income support, placed in jeopardy in order, so the Government say, to encourage them to look harder for

      1059
      work, although the survey on which the legislation is based shows that they do not need encouragement when work is available.
      What this survey and every survey of the labour market shows most of all is that by no stretch of statistical creativity can the Government make the number of jobs without workers fit the number of workers without jobs. On even the most favourable reading of the unemployment figures, two out of three—or, more likely, five out of six —have no opportunity of employment, no matter how hard they seek it. Under the Bill, they will be put under pressure to give assurances that they will take any job with any wages and conditions, even if it is temporary work, or they will be disqualified from receiving benefit. The Minister has said that that will not happen. That is what the Government said last year when we warned them that taking all rights to benefit away from the 16 to I8-year-olds would result in many of them wandering destitute through our streets. Since then, Ministers have had to take emergency action to deal with some of the problems that they said last year would not exist.
      The Bill will do nothing to help most of the unemployed to find work. Far from encouraging those with problems, it will discourage those who continue not to find work by rubbing their noses in their repeated failure week after week, year in and year out.
      The Bill is intended to reduce further the numbers of registered unemployed. It is intended to foster the climate in which people are forced into jobs even with atrocious pay and conditions. It will cause hardship, distress, agony and anguish to many who, despite deprivation, seek to maintain their pride and their independence of spirit. I fear that it will lead to increased mental breakdown and even to an increase in the number of suicides. That seems to us a high price to pay and a serious risk to run for the sake of pandering to the prejudices of the comfortable, the secure and the ignorant. It is a price that no responsible Government would be prepared to pay and a risk that no responsible Government would be willing to run, and it will be a lasting shame even to the present irresponsible Administration.
      10.28 pm
      Mr. Burns: I do not intend to speak for long, but I should like to make three points.
      During the controversy over the most contentious part of the Bill, clause 5, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House, has been overlooked. The clause implements my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision to increase to 80 years the age limit for mobility allowance.
      Secondly, the changes to the rules on income support and housing benefit for those 16 and 17-year-olds who are genuinely estranged from their parents are right and should be welcomed by everyone.
      Thirdly, on the more controversial topic of the "actively seeking work" clause, I accept that there is a strong difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. I believe that when the clause is in practice it will not bring about the dire results mentioned by Opposition Members. The vast majority of those who, sadly, are unemployed and desperately want to go back to work will have nothing
      1060
      to fear from that part of the Bill. It will help to fill the loophole open to people who genuinely do not want to work.
      I am pleased that we have come to the Third Reading of the Bill. I wholeheartedly support it and look forward to seeing it on the statute book later this summer.
      10.29 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: I find it somewhat sickening that a number of Conservative Members have suddenly turned up in the Chamber after not having been here this evening. They have come, no doubt, from their good dinners further to penalise the poor and the vulnerable. There is something especially nasty about the way that this has been done. Conservative Members would not be prepared to accept the conditions that they impose on other people. They would not be prepared to accept the sort of strictures that attack the poor and the vulnerable which are delivered across the Chamber.
      The Government have deliberately created mass unemployment as a policy. They have created mass unemployment as a way of trying to break the powers of the trade union movement and of forcing wages down. The Government have continually attacked forms of employment protection which were fought for before they reached the statute book. The Government have attacked the unemployed. They have created unemployment and they have attacked the people they have forced on the dole.
      The Bill is vindictive. It is part of the Government's strategy to force wages down. We know what Victorian values mean to this Government. I am sure that some Conservative Members would be quite happy to see little boys once again earning pennies by going up chimneys. Through the Bill the Government are trying to compel people to take low-paid work—not the kind of work that Conservative Members would be prepared to do.
      We have the most obscene values in this society. Some of the most useless people—and I include some Conservative Members in that—receive the highest wages in society. If I were run over tonight—if I were, it would probably be by a car driven by a Conservative Member —who would I want to come to my assistance? Would I want 100 stockbrokers or a nurse? That question is rhetorical and I know who I would want to assist me. However, we must bear in mind the amount of money a stockbroker earns in comparison to a nurse's salary.
      Mr. Winnick: With regard to the Victorian society, has my hon. Friend seen today's television news and reports in the press relating to the first survey in 100 years of people living and sleeping in derelict areas? As many people are sleeping out in the cold only a few minutes walk from this place as there were 100 years ago. Is that not another way in which we are returning to the values of Victorian Britain?
      Mr. Banks: It is very interesting that the Salvation Army carried out that survey into homelessness in London. The Government have stopped keeping statistics on that subject. When the Government are confronted with the nasty realities of the consequences of their policies, what do they do? They ensure that no one collects the relevant statistics and say that the problem does not exist. It is not surprising that homelessness and poverty have doubled under this Government. It is part of the Government's strategy to attack the weakest, most

      1061
      vulnerable and those suffering most as a result of the Government's policies—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members cannot wait to get into their cars and taxis to leave this place. However, I will not facilitate their easy egress from the House. The way in which Conservative Members were not in the Chamber during the Report stage, how they did not listen and are not concerned is sickening. They are just waiting for the end of Third Reading so they can clear off. I will not facilitate them.
      It is evidence of the Tory Government's hypocrisy that they always claim that the rich need the incentive of more money to work, but the poor need less. [Interruption.] I assume that Conservative Members have had the benefit of some very good dinners tonight—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would get on with his speech.
      Mr. Banks: It is difficult. I would get on with my speech, but is obvious to me that I am faced by a rather unruly and hostile mob. Conservative Members are making it difficult for me to get on with my speech. A little earlier I heard a Tory Whip complain most bitterly that a Division on the Bill had spoilt his dinner. Jolly good. I am glad that it spoilt his dinner.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant.
      Mr. Banks: Indeed it is not, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, my point is that all the Conservative Members want to do is to get on with their dinners, get into their taxis and get home. They do not give a damn about the people whom they have affected by the Bill.
      The Bill is hypocritical and vicious and it is just like Tory Members. It is a snapshot of Tory Members. It is typical of this Gradgrind Government and the hon. Members who support them. I shall oppose the Bill in the Lobby.
      10.35 pm
      Mr. David Nicholson: Having speeded up a speech a few weeks ago so that the hon. Member for Newham. North-West (Mr. Banks) could make his speech and then have his dinner, I regret his remarks about dinners.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will forgive me if I pay tribute to the role played by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in getting the Bill through a toughly argued but civilised Committee stage. That role has continued since the Bill left Committee. I cite as an example the response to the points made about 16 to 17-year-olds and the handsome tribute which was paid to my hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on Monday, which appears in Hansard at column 751. My hon. Friend the Minister also acknowledged this evening that the regulations in the Bill will take account of work-related expenses, which is helpful.
      I say this in the context of the bilious attack made earlier this evening by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We learned nothing new from that attack about the Minister or, indeed, the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
      There have been several changes to the Bill since it left Committee. Those changes, which have been referred to
      1062
      this evening, have considerably improved the Bill. For example, the Bill implements the Budget cuts in employees' national insurance contributions. Many Conservative Members have been pressing for that for some time. Reference has also been made to the abolition of the earnings limit. Other improvements include improvements in widows' pensions for the 40 to 45-year-old group and the new premiums for pensioners aged 75 and over.
      The most emotional debate in Committee was that on the 16 to 17-year-olds, and the Government have responded to that. The most emotional debate on Report was not that on child benefit. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to extend the take-up of family credit. I and others believe that this is essential to meet the criticisms which have been levelled by Conservative Members towards the Government's policy on child benefit. In an oral question a week last Monday, I welcomed the measures being taken by the Government.
      The most emotional debate on Report was that on transitional benefits, which I do not intend to discuss further. I simply quote again the pledge made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary:
      "We shall continue to consider the information available to us, and where it is evident that there is pressure on a particular group we shall act accordingly."—[Official Report, 24 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 743.]
      I welcome that commitment by my hon. Friend and I welcome the Bill and the various measures and improvements that it makes.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
      The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 165.

      [Division No. 181]

      [10.37 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Burns, Simon

      Alexander, Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Butcher, John

      Allason, Rupert

      Butler, Chris

      Amess, David

      Butterfill, John

      Amos, Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Cash, William

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baldry, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Conway, Derek

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Benyon, W.

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Blackburn, Dr John Q.

      Couchman, James

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cran, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Curry, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

      Boswell, Tim

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Day, Stephen

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Devlin, Tim

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bowis, John

      Dicks, Terry

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dover, Den

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bright, Graham

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Evennett, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      1063

      Fallon, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Favell, Tony

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lightbown, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Peter

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lord, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Franks, Cecil

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Freeman, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gale, Roger

      Madel, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mans, Keith

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maples, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marland, Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marlow, Tony

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gow, Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Mellor, David

      Ground, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hague, William

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mills, Iain

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moate, Roger

      Hannam, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

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

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Harris, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hayes, Jerry

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hayward, Robert

      Mudd, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Heddle, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Neubert, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hill, James

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Holt, Richard

      Norris, Steve

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howard, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

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

      Paice, James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Ingram, Adam

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irving, Charles

      Portillo, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jackson, Robert

      Price, Sir David

      Janman, Tim

      Raffan, Keith

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Redwood, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Riddick, Graham

      Key, Robert

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ryder, Richard

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Knowles, Michael

      Scott, Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lang, Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Latham, Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      1064

      Shersby, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Sims, Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Speller, Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Ward, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Steen, Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wheeler, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Whitney, Ray

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sumberg, David

      Wilshire, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wolfson, Mark

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Thurnham, Peter

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Foster, Derek

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foulkes, George

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Fraser, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Galloway, George

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Barron, Kevin

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Battle, John

      George, Bruce

      Beckett, Margaret

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gordon, Mildred

      Boyes, Roland

      Gould, Bryan

      Bradley, Keith

      Graham, Thomas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Buchan, Norman

      Hardy, Peter

      Buckley, George J.

      Henderson, Doug

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hood, Jimmy

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Howells, Geraint

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clay, Bob

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Crowther, Stan

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cryer, Bob

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Janner, Greville

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Darling, Alistair

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilfedder, James

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

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Dixon, Don

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dobson, Frank

      Lambie, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lamond, James

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Lewis, Terry

      Eadie, Alexander

      Livsey, Richard

      Eastham, Ken

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Fatchett, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Faulds, Andrew

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fearn, Ronald

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McKelvey, William

      Flannery, Martin

      Madden, Max

      Flynn, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      1065

      Marek, Dr John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Marshall, David (Shetileston)

      Parry, Robert

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Patchett, Terry

      Martlew, Eric

      Pendry, Tom

      Maxton, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Meacher, Michael

      Powell, Ray (Ogrnore)

      Meale, Alan

      Prescott, John

      Michael, Alun

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Richardson, Jo

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Robertson, George

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Rogers, Allan

      Mullin, Chris

      Rooker, Jeff

      Murphy, Paul

      Ruddock, Joan

      Nellist, Dave

      Sedgemore, Brian

      O'Brien, William

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      O'Neill, Martin

      Short, Clare

      1066

      Sillars, Jim

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wareing, Robert N.

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

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Soley, Clive

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Spearing, Nigel

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Stott, Roger

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Gavin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Turner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Wall, Pat

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Walley, Joan

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Planning Consents (Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
10.53 pm
Mr. Tim Janman: This is the first Adjournment debate in which I have spoken, and if someone had predicted that it would be a debate concentrating on Wales, or, more accurately, on a particular part of Wales—the district authority area of Anglesey—that would have been difficult to believe.
I raise this issue on behalf of a constituent who wrote to me on 14 April. Tragically, two days later that gentleman died. However, I decided to go ahead, and, in a sense, this debate is in his memory. In his letter to me he said that he had written to a builder in north Wales asking for information about a building development—17 properties—taking place in the community of Cohen Wen, Llanfairpwll, Anglesey. I shall read the letter that my constituent received from the builder:
"Dear Mr. Lovell,
Thank you for your letter dated 6th April, the contents of which are noted. We have pleasure in enclosing details of our development at Cohen Wen but should warn you at this stage that unless you are moving to Anglesey with your work, or you are retiring to the area having been born there, we would be unable to sell a property to you on that development. A condition of our planning consent was that we sold new homes only to existing residents of Gwynedd or those with relatives in the area, or those born in the area and returning to retire. If we can provide any further information please do not hesitate to contact us."
Under the notice of decision within the section 52 planning agreement drawn up between the authority and the builder, the restraints imposed are even worse than the builder first thought. Paragraph 9 of that agreement states:
"The dwellings hereby approved shall only be occupied by a person currently residing or employed within the county of Gwynedd, including any dependants of such a person residing with him, or a widow or widower of such a person."
My constituent, who fought for the United Kingdom in Malaya and Burma during the second world war, made the point that he always felt that he had been fighting for a free country—for a country in which there is freedom of movement, and in which a person has a right to buy a house in one part of the country, or sell one, move, and then buy a house in another part of that country. I am talking not about a wealthy man who is looking for a second home, but about a man who worked hard all his life in an industrial area—in south Essex—and who, on nearing the end of his working life, decided that he wanted to retire to a part of the United Kingdom that he liked, and where he wished to spend the last years of his life.
Although I accept that there is considerable concern in different parts of the United Kingdom—not just in Wales —that local people are not priced out of their local housing market, there are far more subtle ways of ensuring that that is achieved than by resorting to the blunderbuss used by Anglesey council. Although the provision of housing for local people is important, it is also important to remember the right of any United Kingdom citizen to live in any part of the United Kingdom.
Since receiving my constituent's letter, I have contacted the builder, who is the piggy in the middle of this sad affair. The builder is currently taking legal advice from the House Builders Federation, which I hope will be that the council acted unlawfully.
1068
Given that the caveats in question are contained within a section 52 agreement, they apply in perpetuity. However, the policy that they seek to pursue does not work in practice. Not so long ago, the builder had sold eight of the 17 properties on the development—presumably to local people who met the caveats specified in the section 52 agreement. However, seven of those eight purchasers, on learning that they themselves could only resell the properties to others who satisfied the council's caveats, cancelled their purchases. So the builder, because of the council's unreasonable attitude, is finding it difficult to sell the properties that it built.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Has the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to contact Ynys Môn borough council about that matter? If he has, was he informed that there are 28,088 houses on the island, of which fewer than 200 are subject to any restriction of the type to which he refers, leaving any of the 99 per cent. of the remaining properties that may be on the market at any one time free to be purchased by his constituent?
Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the island has three designated growth areas on which there are no planning restrictions? They are at Amlwch, Holyhead and Llangefni. Thirdly, does he know, as a result of his consultation with the borough council, that these restrictions do not apply to a person who moves to the island as a result of employment? Fourthly, is he aware that the planning consent to which he refers has not yet been completed?
Mr. Janman: On the last point, there seems to be some confusion or lack of communication between the building company—which is taking legal advice from the House Builders Federation about the sort of nonsense that this council is pursuing—and the council. I have not spoken to the council, because of what it has laid out clearly in section 52 of the agreement, of which I have a copy. I remind the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) of what I have said. A person living in my constituency, or a person living in Caernarfon, Swansea, Fishguard or Cardiff, has the right to choose to live anywhere in the United Kingdom. By "anywhere", I mean any specific house, road, village or town in the country. This is not an English—Welsh issue. The sort of constraints put down clearly by this local authority impede the right of a citizen of the United Kingdom to choose to buy a certain residence in which he or she, as a resident of this country, wishes to live.
It is interesting that, since I did an interview on HTV television on Monday night, I have already had a letter of support for what I am saying from two residents of the county of Gwynedd. They fully agree with what I have been saying. The sales director of the company concerned has lived in Wales for 22 years. She has a Welsh-speaking son, yet she, for example, would not be permitted, under this section 52 agreement, to buy one of the properties that her own building company has built at this development.
It is not in the interests of the House for me to be over-dramatic about this affair. I emphasise that, perhaps unlike my constituent, who understandably got slightly the wrong end of the stick about what was happening, I do not see this as an English versus Welsh issue. We should not take a course whereby local authorities are legally able to put up an obstacle—in this case an Anglesey wall—against people coming into an area and being able to buy the

1069
house they wish. Such a situation could get out of control. Certain communities could react against what they saw other communities doing. The result could be a silly and dire situation.
I have used the opportunity tonight to bring this series of events to the attention of my hon. Friend. He can see that this situation caused a great deal of heartache to one of my constituents. It is tragic that, only two days after writing to me, he died suddenly. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the ramifications of this case. I hope he will tell the House tonight that the Government will not support local authorities putting such tight restraints on housing developments.
Many housing developments are taking place in my constituency. The local authority provides for low-cost housing through the use of housing associations buying a percentage of properties in any one development. What has happened in this affair gave a bad impression to one of my constituents. I hope that the situation can be reviewed. If possible, I hope that regulations can be issued by the Welsh Office and used to ensure that local authorities cannot use section 52 agreements in this way.
11.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It gives me an opportunity to clear the air on a matter about which there has been some confusion. Before I begin, may I express my condolences to the family of his constituent who raised this matter with him and who, as he said, died recently.
My hon. Friend will understand that responsibility for local development control rests with the local planning authorities. In this instance the planning authority is the Isle of Anglesey borough council, and the case is still in its hands. As I understand it, a formal decision on the application for planning permission to build houses at Collen Wen, Llanfairpwll, has not yet been announced, although the applicant has been given a clear indication that permission will be available subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Grist: Not at this point.
As there is a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State against either a refusal of planning permission—although that seems not to be likely here—or conditions imposed on such a permission, it would not be right for me to make any detailed observations on this case, or indeed on any other particular case in Anglesey or north Wales. I can, however, attempt to clarify our policy on the use of conditions in planning permissions in a general sense, in the hope of putting my hon. Friend's mind at rest.
Jointly with the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office issued a circular on the subject in 1985. This circular, 1/85 "The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission", makes it very clear that conditions should be imposed only where necessary and where reasonable. They must also be enforceable, precise and relevant both to planning and to the development to be permitted. The circular makes specific reference to the use of conditions to secure particular types of domestic occupancy, and puts very cogently the reasons why the practice should, except in exceptional circumstances, be avoided.
1070
Paragraph 77 of the annex to the circular states:
"if the development of a site for housing is an acceptable use of the land there will seldom be any good reason on land use planning grounds to restrict the occupancy of those houses to a particular type of person e.g. those already living or working in the area, or holidaymakers. To impose such a condition is to draw an artificial and unwarranted distinction between new houses or new conversions and existing houses that are not subject to such restrictions on occupancy or sale. It may deter house builders from providing homes for which there is local demand and building societies from providing mortgage finance. It may also impose hardship on owners who subsequently need to sell. It involves too detailed and onerous an application of development control and too great an interference in the rights of individual ownership. In the view of the Secretaries of State, such conditions should therefore not be imposed save in the most exceptional cases where there are clear and specific circumstances that warrant allowing an individual house or extension on a site where development would not normally be permitted."
In other words, in Wales—as in England—a planning authority must, if challenged, be prepared to demonstrate land use issues to justify an occupancy condition. The most usual of those exceptional issues, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, is that which relates to the occupancy of dwellings erected for farmers and farm workers. Otherwise occupancy conditions are very much the exception rather than the rule. That is not to say, however, that it is never appropriate for local planning authorities to consider, and even give priority to, specific needs which they may have identified in their areas. Whereas it will never be right for the statutory planning system to be used to discriminate against any particular groups in the community, it can be used to respond sensitively to particular needs.
There are ways within the planning system in which such problems can be settled without the use of planning conditions, and it may be helpful if I touch on one of them. Although most planning policy and practice is common to both England and Wales—with varying degrees of emphasis, of course—at least one issue arises in Wales alone. My hon. Friend may be aware of concerns that have been expressed about the future of the Welsh language —particularly in areas such as Anglesey where a majority of the population speaks Welsh, but where a number of social and demographic factors have resulted in a decline in the language over the past decades. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken a number of positive steps to help the language. They include the issue in December last year of a circular clarifying the position of Welsh in relation to development plans and development control.
The circular explains that land use policies in structure and local plans can take into account, in appropriate circumstances, the implications of planning policies for the Welsh language. For development control decisions, the circular reminds planning authorities that when an application is made to them for planning permission they must have regard to the provisions of the development plan—as far as is material to the application—and to any other material considerations. The circular goes on to say that policies that relate to the needs of and interests of the Welsh language may properly be among those considerations, and makes it clear that that requirement bears equally on the Secretary of State and his inspectors in considering planning appeals.
Decisions in individual cases where the needs and interests of the Welsh language may be a material consideration, whether that consideration flows from

1071
policies in the development plan or elsewhere, must, as with all other planning applications, be based on planning grounds only and must be reasonable. While it has been held that material considerations can cover a wide field, they must be genuine planning considerations—that is, they must be related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land. In determining planning applications where the language is an issue, the Secretary of State and his inspectors expect local planning authorities to produce specific evidence of the land use planning considerations which have led to their decision.
My hon. Friend will note that the advice emphasises the need for planning decisions to be based on planning grounds only and to be reasonable. Local planning authorities in Wales will be aware that no encouragement is given by this advice for the use of planning conditions which we do not see as an appropriate mechanism for implementing local policies formulated under this advice.
The power to impose conditions on a planning permission can enable many development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise be necessary to refuse planning permission. Sensitive use of conditions can improve the quality of development control and enhance public confidence in the planning system. In considering whether a particular condition is necessary, one key test is whether planning permission would have to be refused if the condition were not to be imposed. If not, such a condition needs special and precise justification. The same criteria and tests are applied by my right hon. Friend and his inspectors in deciding whether a condition appealed against should be retained.
I need not remind my hon. Friend that the purpose of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. Whether a proposal would affect the locality generally and unacceptably may be a legitimate public interest, and the planning authority may indeed feel that it has to protect it. At the end of the day, however, its powers under the planning Act are concerned with land use planning matters and it is to these that it must relate its decision whether to approve or to refuse or to apply conditions.
We are currently looking in Wales at ways in which some of the problems associated with the provision of low-cost housing for people living in rural areas can be tackled, and in particular whether the planning system has anything to offer.
I announced at this morning's sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee that I shall be seeking discussions between the Welsh Office and the relevant local authorities to examine this area of rural housing. It will be my intention, however, that any answers which we may find should be within clear planning guidelines, should be seen as fair as between different groups, and that any steps taken should result in real benefit to those in housing need. This is not of course an issue unique to Wales, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in this regard. But in Wales we have our national and cultural setting to take account of and the discussions which we are putting in hand will be against that background as well.
It is clear that one of the options that we shall be exploring will concern itself with how the planning system
1072
might help both to provide affordable housing in rural areas and to ensure that houses thus provided remain available for that purpose despite changes of occupancy that may perforce have to take place. I shall, of course, have in mind my hon. Friend's strictures about occupancy conditions when we come to consider the results of these discussions in Wales.
Mr. Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Grist: I do not think that it would be suitable for me to do so at this moment.
Whether the planning policies in question deal with the Welsh language or any other issue, they are best expressed in an up-to-date and relevant development plan. Authorities should recognise that policies in approved development plans carry much more weight in places of dispute than informal policies expressed elsewhere, possibly without having been publicly aired.
Late last year my right hon. Friend, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, published a planning policy guidance note on local plans. In that they urged the importance of local plans as the basis for sound and effective development control, especially in areas where there is much pressure for development—and that, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, often includes pleasant rural areas to which people wish to retire.
Some authorities still make a practice of using as a basis for control of development informal or bottom-drawer plans which have not been subject to the statutory procedures of public consultation and formal adoption. Others have chosen to do without any form of land use plan and have sought to deal with planning applications ad hoc as they come forward. Neither approach is a satisfactory alternative to the prescription and adoption of the statutory local plan. Informal plans carry less weight for development control purposes and provide less satisfactory guidance to developers and reassurance to local people about the future pattern of development than a properly prepared and adopted local plan. If there is no adopted local plan, local authorities can find it more difficult to justify refusing planning permission or to justify planning conditions and to support their reasons on appeal.
My hon. Friend will no doubt know that the Government plan changes to the development plan system. The district development plan—in effect a local plan for a whole district—will form the central feature of the new system. As that is the level at which the vast majority of planning applications are dealt with, district councils will be made responsible for preparing a comprehensive plan for the whole of their local authority area, setting out planning policies for land use which are to be applied in dealing with planning applications. That plan will, of course, have to be consistent with national and county policies and with any regional planning guidelines that may be issued in Wales. The aim is to obtain a single development plan, which every authority will be obliged to prepare within a given time scale. That will form a working tool to guide the district authority, the developer and the public alike. Legislation will be introduced to bring about those changes. But pending that, it is important that the preparation of local plans should move ahead briskly. The work done will not be lost

1073
in any new system of development plan since provision will be made to enable up-to-date local plans to be carried over into the new system.
The issue that my hon. Friend raised was about planning conditions and I hope that what I have said has, at least, made clear to him the Government's policy towards particular kinds of conditions in Wales and about the context in which planning policies in the Principality are set. At the end of the day, it is for the respective developer to decide whether to challenge a local decision by appealing to the Secretary of State. I am satisfied that the issues that have arisen during this debate are well understood by developers and planning authorities alike and that the Government's view on the use of planning conditions, by and large, is accepted.
The Government remain of the view that the present planning system provides the best mechanism available to use for securing the right balance between achieving much needed development and conserving the best in our natural and man-made environments. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there is no cause in the operation of the system in Wales to doubt that that is so.
Mr. Janman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's long exposition on planning in Wales. However, I want to make two brief points on which he will, perhaps, reply to me. First, unless I misheard my hon. Friend, he said that a decision was still awaited on planning permission for this particular development. However, when I spoke to the building company involved yesterday, it told me that the two show homes for the development were virtually completed—and would be completed in the next week—and that a further six homes were already under construction. I do not understand how construction can already have started on the development—obviously some time ago—if the final decision has not been taken on planning permission.
1074
Secondly, I do not understand how the Welsh language has any relevance to planning decisions, whether in Wales or elsewhere. If people come to a particular area, the number of people there increases and so does the number of people who may wish to take up the language. We are not talking here about people leaving Wales and taking their language with them. I have to say—[Interruption.] I would be pleased, Madam Deputy Speaker, if there were no such sedentary interventions—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
Mr. Janman: However, of course, the Welsh language is an important part of our British heritage. We are not talking about trying to stop people leaving parts of Wales and about the language dying; we are talking about the opportunity for people to come into Wales. As a number of those moving in are taking the opportunity of retiring from England, Scotland or elsewhere in Wales and are going to live in parts of the Principality where the language is still strong, it is not inconceivable that some of those people would have quite a bit of spare time on their hands and might want to learn the language of that part of the United Kingdom.
My first specific point, which my hon. Friend the Minister may or may not wish to come back on, is why., if a planning decision has not yet been made, construction work has already started on eight of the properties, and is nearly completed on two. Secondly, given my comments, can my hon. Friend put a little more meat on the bones of why a planning decision has any relevance whatsoever to the Welsh language?
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Royal Armoured Corps
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on manning levels at all ranks in the Royal Armoured Corps.

  Mr. Neubert
  At 31 December 1988 soldier strength in the Royal Armoured Corps was 63 men, or 0·8 per cent., below its establishment of 8,039. Because the rank ranging system of filling posts is employed in the Royal Armoured Corps, it is not possible to split the establishment down into ranks, hut the shortfall is at the bottom of the structure.

  At 31 December 1988 officer strength in the Royal Armoured Corps was 1,268, 103 officers (8 per cent.) below establishment. Almost all the shortfall is at the rank of captain.

  RSRE, Malvern
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to dispose of the RSRE north site, Malvern.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans at present to dispose of the north site at RSRE Malvern. The possibility of establishing a science park using part of the site is under consideration.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken following receipt of the feasibility plan for use of the RSRE north site Malvern, sent by PA Consultants in December 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The consultants report examined the feasibility of establishing a science park using part of the north site at RSRE, Malvern. Consideration is being given to the way ahead, taking into account our recent announcement of intentions regarding the defence research agency, in which RSRE would be included.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the 1989 "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

  Mr. Younger
  I intend to publish this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" on Tuesday 2 May.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Firework Injuries
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will now publish the firework injury statistics for 1988.
  536
  Mr. Forth
  The firework injury statistics were published in answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 20 April, at columns 256–58.

  Paper and Pulp Imports
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the United Kingdom's imports of(a) paper and (b) pulp in each year since 1979.

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

  United Kingdom imports of paper and paperboard, waste paper and paperboard and pulp 1979–88

  £ million

  Paper and paperboard

  Waste paper and paperboard

  Pulp

  1979

  1,081·6

  4·5

  384·3

  1980

  1,104·9

  2·8

  395·9

  1981

  1,321·1

  1·8

  436·7

  1982

  1,409·3

  3·6

  408·4

  1983

  1,575·9

  2·2

  425·8

  1984

  1,874·6

  8·2

  603·5

  1985

  2,057·9

  9·0

  496·8

  1986

  2,182·2

  3·7

  519·6

  1987

  2,632·6

  6·7

  650·6

  1988

  3,014·6

  8·9

  716·4

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics

  Note: 1988 figures provisional.

  Machine Safety
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement setting out the manner in which the adoption of the machine safety directive will facilitate the flow of trade within the EEC.

  Mr. Maude
  The aim of the machinery safety directive, which covers a wide range of machines, is the removal of barriers to trade through the harmonisation of legislation in member states. It lays down the essential requirements and certification procedures that machines have to meet to ensure free circulation throughout the Community.

  Once the directive has been adopted and implemented, manufacturers or their agents resident in the Community will be required to ensure their machines meet the relevant essential safety requirements before they can market their products in the European Community. Manufacturers can choose the method of meeting the essential requirements from a number of options, including the use of harmonised European standards. The adoption of this directive will help remove the special requirements that exist in some member states, which have prevented free trade in the past. As a result, an open, single market will be created, which will enable the United Kingdom industry to compete on an equal footing in the European Community.

  Artificial Limbs
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on artificial lower limbs is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The report on the supply of artificial lower limbs in the United Kingdom is published today. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that certain
  537
  conduct of the largest supplier of artifical lower limbs in the United Kingdom, InterMed Ltd., a subsidiary of BTR plc with a market share of 70 per cent., operated against the public interest. Chas A. Blatchford and Sons Ltd., with a 26 per cent. market share, was also a monopolist, but the Commission did not find any conduct of this company that operated against the public interest.

  The commission found that InterMed, through its three subsidiaries—J. E. Hanger & Co. Ltd., Vessa Ltd., and Robert Kellie and Son Ltd.—had obtained prices for, and profits from, its supply of artificial lower limbs which were higher that could be expected in circumstances of normal competition. In addition, it had used its monopoly position to place unreasonable pressure on public sector purchasers, having regard to the nature of the sector, and had been unco-operative with them. Because of this InterMed had not given sufficient regard to the interests of patients.

  The commission recommended that, subject to a report from the disablement services authority to the Director General of Fair Trading on the impact of the impending round of tendering for prosthetic services at certain disablement services centres on InterMed's business, InterMed should divest itself (within six months of 30 April 1989) either of Hanger or Vessa, and that neither company should be sold to Blatchfords. They also recommend that, both before and after such divestment, InterMed be required to supply the products in question to any public sector purchaser or contractor on the same terms, conditions and prices as they were made available to its own prosthetists and technicians; and the Director General of Fair Trading invite a further report from the DSA by 30 September 1990 on the progress made towards promoting a more competitive market.

  I welcome this report and accept the MMC's findings and conclusions. However, in view of current changes in the state of competition in this market, I am asking the Director General of Fair Trading to advise me as soon as possible whether in order to remedy the adverse effects the MMC identified it is still necessary to require InterMed to divest part of its artificial lower limbs activities. Also I am inviting the Director General to seek undertakings from BTR, or its subsidiary InterMed, not to discriminate between, on the one hand, public sector purchasers and contractors and, on the other, its own prosthetists and technicians in the supply of artificial lower limbs.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the internal market Council held on 13 April.

  Mr. Maude
  The Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, adopted directives on secondary fertilisers and on the design and construction of side guards to be fitted to heavy goods vehicles.

  It also reached common positions on three proposals, as follows. The draft 11th company law directive requires companies from outside a member state that establish a place of business (or branch) in that member state to deliver certain documents, including accounting documents, to the relevant companies registry. The broadcasting directive will break down existing barriers to the free flow of television programmes across frontiers in
  538
  the Community; and a directive on dangerous substances will harmonise restrictions on the marketing and use of seven dangerous substances and preparations.

  The Council also discussed the proposal for an EC merger control regulation, and the draft directive on right of residence thoughout the Community for EC nationals not already deemed to have such a right under the free movement provisions of the Treaty of Rome.

  Urea (Imports)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements exist to control the import of urea from non-European Community countries; and if he will list the tariffs imposed on each supplier nation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are no quota restrictions on imports of urea into the United Kingdom, although certain overseas countries gave volume undertakings on their exports to the Community as a result of two anti-dumping investigations completed in 1987 and 1989.

  There are two EC import duty rates; 11 per cent. for urea which contains 45 per cent. or more by weight of nitrogen on the dry anhydrous product and 8 per cent. for all other types. However, imports of urea from most developing countries are allowed into the EC duty free under GSP arrangements and under various EC trade agreements. The only exceptions are Venezuela and Mexico, whose imports under the 11 per cent. duty rate are subject to the full rate of duty, and Romania, for which all types of urea are subject to the full duty rate. Definitive anti-dumping duties are applicable to imports of urea from Libya, Saudi Arabia, the United States of America (with the exception of one company) and Venezuela.

  Girobank
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on any proposal to renegotiate the counters contract and the Department of Social Security contract to the advantage of Girobank in the light of Alliance and Leicester's conditional offer of purchase.

  Mr. Forth
  Any renegotiation of the terms of the contracts between Girobank and Post Office Counters and between Girobank and the Department of Social Security is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will place in the Library the information on publicity campaigns referred to in the answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 10 April,Official Report, column 399.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested has now been placed in the Library of the House.

  Aircraft Exports
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if British Aerospace sought authorisation from his Department for the flight to, and exhibition at, Baghdad, of an advanced Hawk trainer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to

  539
  comment on individual licensing matters. Licences are required for the export to Iraq of military equipment which is subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order (S.I. 1987 No. 2070), as amended.

  Applications for such licences are examined in particular against the guidelines on the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq announced to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of 29 October 1985, at column 454.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he takes to ensure that military aeroplanes licensed for export for training purposes are not converted to combat use.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: Licences are required for the export to all destinations of military aeroplanes which are subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987 No. 2070) as amended.

  Applications for such licences are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with stringent export control procedures.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners' Earnings Limit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are entitled to(a) the single retirement pension, and (b) the married couples' retirement pension; and of these how many are currently affected, in each category, by the pensioners' earnings limit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics relating to entitlement to retirement pension cannot be broken down according to marital status. Approximately 2,500 individuals currently have their basic pension reduced on account of earnings over £75 a week. In addition, approximately 200,000 individuals deferring receipt of their state pension because of earnings over £75 a week may now choose to draw their pension.

  Oglesby Report
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to implement the recommendations in the Oglesby report that mobility allowance tribunals and social security appeal tribunals should be amalgamated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the present system, non-medical questions arising on mobility allowance claims are decided, on appeal, by social security appeal tribunals; medical questions are decided by medical boards and thereafter, if necessary, by medical appeal tribunals. We have no plans at present to revise this aspect of medical adjudication.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make available any instructions issued since 1965 to staff in his Department whose duties involve either visiting or assessing claims from people who are mentally handicapped concerning the manner in which such claims are to be assessed.
  540
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been no instructions on assessment of claims from mentally handicapped people, and their appointees, beyond those which apply to all claimants. A copy of the 'S' manual containing current assessment instructions is in the Library.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what special training is given to staff in his Department to make sure that they deal effectively and sympathetically with claims from people who are mentally handicapped and their families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department's staff involved in customer service receive advice and guidance on dealing sympathetically and efficiently with disabled people.

  More detailed and specific training is given to social fund officers, and covers the need to recognise and appreciate the significance of disability, including mental handicap, and the problems and circumstances arising. This training is now available to all local office staff.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has of the past underpayment of substantial amounts of supplementary benefit to mentally handicapped people because of inadequate assessment of their cases by staff in his Department; and what steps he is taking to remedy this situation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no statistics available on the accuracy of the assessment in respect of claims for supplementary benefit from the mentally handicapped. The award of supplementary benefit, which was replaced in April 1988 by income support, is a matter for the independent statutory authorities.

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the names of the chairman arid wing members of the Hartlepool social security appeal tribunal and give information of their backgrounds arid the reasons they were considered suitable to serve on the tribunal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The appointment of members and the nomination of the chairman to the Hartlepool social security appeal tribunal is the responsibility of the president, His Honour Judge Byrt, QC, and the hon. Member may care to contact him direct.

  Income Support
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what alterations he plans to make to income support provision for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I am pleased to announce that all people, including asylum seekers, who are entitled to urgent case payments will in future receive the appropriate income support premiums, to which they are not entitled at present.

  This follows a commitment I gave during the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill to consider the position of asylum seekers who claim income support.

  Families, in particular, who are eligible for the payments will find themselves significantly better off as a result of these changes. All such families will gain £6·50 a week; lone parents will gain £10·40 a week, and families

  541
  with a disabled child £13·00 a week. The representations in Committee referred to the level of benefit paid under the old rules to a lone parent with a disabled child. These changes will provide an extra £16·90 a week in those circumstances.

  I intend to lay before the House regulations to bring these beneficial changes into effect from July.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for 1978, 1979 and 1988 for each social security office and each social security region, the number of(a) claimants and (b) dependants on (i) supplementary benefit or income support and (ii) family income support or family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as can be obtained as soon as possible.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire to date what statistical information he has as to the different reasons given by social fund officers(a) for negative decisions to claimants on (i) budgeting loans and (ii) partial awards and (b) to claimants for nil award decisions for (i) community care grants and (ii) partial awards.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The local offices in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire are Doncaster East, Doncaster West, and Wath on Dearne.

  The table gives the number of times that a reason for decision is used by social fund officers for determining a nil award for community care grants and budgeting loans.

  No information is collected on reasons for decision for partial awards.

  An application can be refused for more than one reason. The total number of reasons for decision used will be equal to or greater than the number of applications refused. Information on the numbers of applications processed and awards is available in the Library.

  Number

  DONCASTER EAST

  Budgeting Loans—Reasons for Decision

  Savings over £500 meet the full cost:

  2

  Not in receipt of IS:

  79

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks:

  429

  Item(s) excluded by direction:

  71

  Applicant excluded:

  4

  Applied for less than £30:

  38

  Adjusted amount less than £30:

  12

  Total debt exceeds £1,000:

  0

  Previous application and decision for the item:

  51

  Inability to repay:

  16

  Help available from other source.

  7

  Priority too low to meet from the budget.

  492

  Alternative available to whole application.

  4

  Loan refused because CCG awarded.

  33

  Others not covered above.

  74

  Community Care Grants—Reasons for Decision

  Savings over £500 meet the full cost:

  0

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to qualify:

  29

  Item(s) excluded by Direction:

  19

  Applicant excluded by Direction:

  0

  Applied for less than £30:

  7

  Adjusted amount less than £30:

  2

  Previous application and decision for the item:

  15

  Help available from another source.

  3

  542

  Number

  Priority too low to meet from the budget.

  3

  Alternative available to the whole application

  1

  Others not covered above.

  271

  Number

  DONCASTER WEST

  Budgeting Loans—Reasons for Decision

  Savings over £500 meet the full cost

  1

  Not in receipt of IS

  126

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  315

  Item(s) excluded by direction

  70

  Applicant excluded

  1

  Applied for less than £30

  34

  Adjusted amount less than £30

  18

  Total debt exceeds £1,000

  0

  Previous application and decision for the item

  48

  Inability to repay

  70

  Help available from another source

  22

  Priority too low to meet from the budget

  328

  Alternative available to whole application

  24

  Loan refused because CCG awarded

  35

  Others not covered above

  121

  Community Care Grants—Reasons for decision

  Savings over £500 meet the full cost

  3

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to qualify

  38

  Item(s) excluded by direction

  18

  Applicant excluded by direction

  1

  Applied for less than £30

  11

  Adjusted amount less than £30

  2

  Previous application and decision for the item

  14

  Help available from another source

  6

  Priority too low to meet from the budget

  4

  Alternative available to whole application

  3

  Others not covered above

  345

  Number

  WATH ON DEARNE

  Budgeting loans—reasons for decision

  Savings over £500 meet the full cost:

  0

  Not in receipt of IS:

  73

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks:

  227

  Item(s) excluded by direction:

  42

  Applicant excluded:

  1

  Applied for less than £30:

  13

  Adjusted amount less than £30:

  2

  Total debt exceeds £1,000:

  0

  Previous application and decision for the item:

  14

  Inability to repay:

  15

  Help available from another source.

  0

  Priority too low to meet from the budget.

  182

  Alternative available to whole application.

  0

  Loan refused because CCG awarded.

  18

  Others not covered above.

  80

  Community care grants—reasons for decision

  Savings over £500 meet the full cost:

  0

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to qualify:

  26

  Item(s) excluded by direction:

  13

  Applicant excluded by direction:

  2

  Applied for less than £30:

  3

  Adjusted amount less than £30:

  0

  Previous application and decision for the item:

  0

  Help available from another source.

  2

  Priority too low to meet from the budget.

  1

  Alternative available to the whole application.

  0

  Others not covered above.

  15

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  CSCE Information Forum
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria were used in choosing the members of the British delegation to the CSCE information forum starting in London on 18 April; what consideration was given to consulting trade union representatives from unions whose members are involved in the collection and dissemination of news, current affairs and cultural matters, in the process of selection and nomination for selection; and what consideration was given to consulting other representative bodies in the media and cultural field.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Invitations to join the British delegation to the London information forum were issued to a large number of people, with a view to constituting a balanced and representative team able to bring appropriate expertise to a wide agenda. The formation of the delegation was preceded by consultations attended by numerous organisations. The TUC did not respond to our invitation to participate or supply comments.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria were used in deciding the appointment of the leader of the British delegation to the CSCE information forum, starting in London on 18 April.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Having decided that the British delegation should if possible be led by a personality from outside Government, Ministers sought an eminent and independent individual with a sound knowledge of public affairs and wide experience of the written and broadcast media. Britain is in fact the only country whose delegation is led by a person from outside Government.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he took of Lord Rees-Mogg's record of service at The Times, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Broadcasting Standards Council in deciding to make the appointment of the leader of the British delegation to the CSCE information forum.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Lord Rees-Mogg was invited to lead the United Kingdom delegation to the London information forum because of his wide experience of public affairs and of the written and broadcast media.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the role and duties of the governor of Hong Kong.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The governor is the personal representative of the Queen in Hong Kong. He is responsible to the Secretary of State. He directs the administration of Hong Kong and is the commander-in-chief of the British forces stationed in Hong Kong. As head of the Hong Kong Government he presides at meetings of the Executive Council. He is also president of the Legislative Council.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote United Kingdom interests in Hong Kong after 1997.
  544
  Mrs. Chalker
  Our interests will be principally met by the effective implementation of the Joint Declaration and the maintenance of Hong Kong as an international financial and commercial centre. Against this background we are encouraging the private sector to build on our existing commercial successes in Hong Kong both as an important market in its own right and as an export centre for the Asia Pacific region. We will continue to foster our cultural links with the territory. We are actively preparing to establish a British consulate-general for the promotion of our interests in Hong Kong after 1997.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the objectives of Government policy on Hong Kong.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our prime objective is the continued stability and prosperity of Hong Kong and its people. To this end we are committed to fulfil our responsibility for the administration of Hong Kong until 30 June 1997 and to ensure the full and faithful implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong. We also aim to foster and strengthen Britain's commercial and other links with Hong Kong up to and beyond 1997.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of financial assistance he is giving or planning to give to other nations to ensure that no extra financial burden is placed upon them in moving away from chlorofluorocarbon-based technology.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Within our overseas aid programme we are ready to respond positively to requests for assistance from development countries. For example, the Government are willing to help countries find ways of avioding the use of CFCs and to examine the implications of CFC-free strategies. We have just offered India £40 million of new local costs aid for environmental projects. Most of this is expected to be spent on forestry, but it is also available to help that country adopt alternative practices to the use of CFCs.

ENERGY

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy with respect to the support grades in Department(a) what is the number of staff employed, (b) how many vacancies there are and how many of these have existed for over one month and over three months, (c) how many temporary and casual appointments there are and (d) how much overtime was worked by them in London and elsewhere.

  Mr. Parkinson
  As at 1 April 1989 numbers in the support grades were 51, of whom one was a casual. There was one vacancy of more than one month's standing. Overtime averages 290 hours per month in London for 47 staff and 60 hours per month elsewhere for four staff.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the areas of British Coal in order of production levels and the number of major injuries sustained in each area as a proportion of the work force.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information requested, in a form that is available, is as follows:

  Rate of Major Injuries per 100,000 manshifts

  Area-Group1

  Number

  Notts

  2·70

  North Yorkshire

  2·93

  South Yorkshire

  2·75

  Central

  2·33

  North East

  2·88

  North West

  2·36

  South Wales

  3·78

  Scottish

  3·70

  Kent

  3·90

  1 Listed in order of revenue output during 1988–89

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of licensed mines currently in operation; how many people are employed therein; and what proportion of these workers have suffered significant industrial injury in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As at December 1988 there were 166 licensed mines operating in Britain, employing just over 2,000 men. Information which shows whether these particular men have suffered significant injuries is not available. However, the major accident rates for licensed mines for the years for which information is available are as follows:

  Accident rates in licensed mines (for 1,000 men)

  Number

  1986–87

  21·90

  1987–88

  21·60

  1988–89

  13·3

  Non-fossil Fuel Technologies
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which non-fossil fuel technologies the Government regard as sufficiently established to provide substantial generation in the United Kingdom on a time scale of 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Nuclear and hydro-electricity energy are both already making a substantial contribution to electricity generation in the United Kingdom and will continue to do so.

  In addition, tidal and wind energy, landfill gas and the combustion of solid wastes have the potential to make a substantial contribution within 15 years.

  Greenhouse Effect (Control)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his policy on the role to be played by nuclear power in this country and abroad in helping to reduce and control the greenhouse effect; and if he will make a statement;
  (2) if he is able to estimate the probable reduction per year in the level of carbon dioxide emissions, expressed in million tonnes, by substituting one pressurised water reactor for an equivalent capacity coal-fired station;546
  (3) whether a United Kingdom pro-rata contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. of their 1988 levels, as called for in the Toronto conference statement to combat the greenhouse effect, could be met solely through Government-led energy conservation, the increased use of renewable energy sources and the novel coal burning technologies currently under development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Nuclear power is already making a significant contribution to curbing emissions of carbon dioxide both here and abroad and I believe that it has an important contribution to make as part of any future international response to the threat of manmade climate change. I estimate that in broad terms substitution of a large PWR for equivalent coal-fired generation might reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 6 million tonnes a year.

  The inter-governmental panel on climate change, to which the United Kingdom has given its full support, is currently conducting a wide-ranging review of the climate change issue; it is therefore inappropriate to consider specific emission reduction targets at this time. It is likely, however, that any response would vary according to the economic and technical circumstances of individual countries and involve a wide range of measures including improved efficiency in both the supply and use of energy as well as moves toward less carbon-intensive fuels. My Department's policies for encouraging economic energy efficiency, the development of renewable energy sources, and diversity in supply are a firm basis for any future action.

  Offshore Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the application offshore of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  An Order in Council has today been laid before Parliament, the main effect of which is to bring gas storage and accommodation installations, and mobile installations in transit, within the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The general provisions of the 1974 Act were applied offshore in 1977.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) (Variation) Order 1989 brings the definitions of offshore installation and pipeline into line with those currently in force in other offshore safety legislation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council which commenced on 17 April in Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made earlier today.

  Food Contamination
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in the reduction and elimination of food contamination; and if he will make a statement.
  547
  Mr. Ryder
  We are making good progress in implementing the wide range of measures which we are taking with the aim of continuing to ensure that food is safe.

  Nature Conservation
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on the progress made in establishing water management trials at Southlake Moor, King's Sedgemoor and West Sedgemoor to monitor the benefit of wetland wildlife; and whether the trials will provide information on water pump level variations.

  Mr. Ryder
  Two water management trials are proceeding on West Sedgemoor and South Lake Moor. Further possible trial sites, including King's Sedgemoor, are still under investigation. The trials will provide information on water pump level variations to help assess the benefit to wetland wildlife.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of ESA agreements reached with owners and occupiers within the area known as the Somerset Levels and Moors, the area of land involved and the total cost of payments made to the end of January 1989 in 1989 prices.

  Mr. Ryder
  The total number of agreements reached within the Somerset Levels and Moors ESA by the end of 1988 is 642 covering an area of 8,877 hectares. These agreements have resulted in payments which in total cost £1·458 million in 1989 prices, to the end of the 1988–89 financial year.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a new provision in the Water Bill which would enable internal drainage boards to adopt water management regimes for the purpose of enhancing nature conservation.

  Mr. Ryder
  Internal drainage boards are already required by section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to further the interests of conservation consistent with their land drainage responsibilities. This duty is carried forward under clause 8 of the Water Bill. Specific advice on water level management is included in our guidelines to drainage authorities on their section 48 responsibilities which was issued last year.

  Rosewarne Experimental Horticulture Establishment
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will defer the closure of Rosewarne experimental horticulture establishment until 31 October to enable current research programmes to be completed and to facilitate negotiations for its future.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is not proposed to close Rosewarne before 31 October. Final decisions on the closure will not be taken until my noble Friend the Baroness Trumpington has completed her consultations with interested bodies on the industry funding of near-market research.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on environmental damage in relation to discharge of nuclear waste products in the sea around the Cornish coastline.
  548
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The effects of liquid radioactive waste discharged by major nuclear sites to the marine environment around the United Kingdom coastline are monitored by my Department as part of its regular programme of aquatic environmental monitoring.

  The results of this monitoring, which are published annually, demonstrate that radioactivity around the Cornish coastline and elsewhere does not occur at levels likely to result in damage to either the marine environment or the living resources which it supports.

HEALTH

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to license manufacturing, distribution, catering and retail premises in order to reduce food poisoning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  A proposal that all food businesses should be registered is being considered as part of the review of the Food Act 1984.

  Dental and Eye Tests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what month he expects to make comparisons between the number of dental and eye tests before and after the introduction of charges.

  Mr. Mellor
  Demand for dental treatment is subject to short-term fluctuation irrespective of changes made to charges. The Department monitors the number of courses scheduled for payment each month. It is unlikely that an assessment of whether there has been an effect on demand following the introduction of the examination charge can be made until figures are available for the quarter July-September 1989. On sight tests, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 17 April, at column 47.

  NHS Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of capital expenditure in the National Health Service, at constant prices, in each year since 1959.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows capital expenditure on the NHS in each year between 1959 and 1988 in 1988 prices. The figure for 1988 reflects the latest available estimate of receipts from land sales and so on, in 1988. The figures have been derived from the United Kingdom national accounts prepared by the Central Statistical Office.

  NHS capital expenditure 1988 prices

  £ million

  1959

  309

  1960

  334

  1961

  382

  1962

  461

  1963

  492

  1964

  602

  1965

  657

  1966

  715

  1967

  862

  1968

  927

  1969

  843

  549

  £ million

  1970

  871

  1971

  961

  1972

  1,086

  1973

  1,250

  1974

  1,136

  1975

  1,156

  1976

  1,136

  1977

  1,033

  1978

  1,030

  1979

  1,088

  1980

  1,019

  1981

  1,034

  1982

  1,125

  1983

  1,132

  1984

  1,211

  1985

  1,243

  1986

  1,334

  1987

  1,238

  1988

  11,110

  1 Estimate

  Consultants
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to announce the names of the health districts which are to get extra consultants; what criteria are being used for the allocation of the 100 posts; which authorities have applied for extra consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We wrote to health authorities on 13 April inviting them to submit bids for the 100 extra consultant posts announced in "Working for Patients" by 31 July 1989. We expect to notify authorities of successful bids in October. I refer the right hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on 7 March, at column 487, for the criteria which will be used in allocating the posts.

  Opencast Sites
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there has been any increase in the incidence of asthma, stomach ulcers, arthritis or ear infection in areas which neighbour or are close to opencast sites.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information of this type is not available centrally.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail the National Health Service provision for those addicted to the benzodiazepine drugs who are trying to end their dependency.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. Services for those dependent on benzodiazepines are provided by general practitioners, general psychiatric services, community drug teams, and specialist services for those experiencing problems with illicit or prescribed drugs.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the annual number of prescriptions for the five most common benzodiazepine drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of prescriptions for the five benzodiazepines most commonly dispensed by community pharmacists in Great Britain in 1987 was as follows:550

  Thousands

  Drug

  Number of prescriptions

  Temazepam

  7,752

  Nitrazepam

  5,227

  Diazepam

  5,078

  Lorazepam

  2,902

  Triazolam

  2,226

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has as to the frequency with which general practitioners prescribe benzodiazepine drugs for periods longer than that recommended by the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect centrally any information about the length of time for which GPs prescribe drugs for patients.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report the names of groups known to be working with benzodiazepine sufferers; if he will give the funds allocated to each by his Department; and if he will consider providing core funding for all such groups.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold centrally a list of groups working with those dependent on benzodiazepines. The Department is, however, funding the National Association for Mental Health (MIND) to produce a national directory of services for this group.

  The provision and funding of direct client services for this group is the responsibility of the local statutory authorities. In order to pump-prime the development of local services for those experiencing problems with illicit or prescribed drugs, the Government established a central funding initiative, under which £17·5 million was allocated to 188 local projects. In addition, since 1986 the Government have allocated funds to regional health authorities specifically for the development of drug misuse services, including services for those dependent on benzodiazepines. This funding totals almost £15 million in 1989–90.

  Core funding under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 is awarded primarily to national organisations. Under this scheme in 1988–89 the Department gave a grant of £10,000 to TRANX (UK) Ltd. The Department's grant to MIND also covers the production of public information material on benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consult pharmaceutical companies producing benzodiazepines about ways in which they could help those who have become addicted to these drugs.

  Mr. Freeman
  Those who have become dependent on benzodiazepines can obtain help from their general practitioner, the general psychiatric services, community drug teams, specialist drug dependency services, and voluntary agencies.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail the action he has taken to encourage general practitioners not normally to prescribe the benzodiazepine drugs for periods longer than those recommended by the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and if he will take further action.
  551
  Mr. Mellor
  General practitioners now have all the information and advice, including that from the Committee on Safety of Medicines, that they need to prescribe benzodiazepines. It is up to doctors to take heed of this advice and to exercise their clinical judgment when prescribing in each case.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will allocate funds for research into the damage to various organs of the body that can arise from the use of the benzodiazepine drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have no plans to do so.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to require general practitioners to record in their patients' medical records full details of all prescriptions.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. Under his terms of service a general practitioner is already required to keep adequate records of the illnesses and treatment of his patients.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to make extended ambulance training compulsory for all ambulance service personnel in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. At the discretion of employing authorities, extended training can be made available to qualified and leading ambulance personnel, but on a voluntary basis.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to obtain an accurate account of teacher shortages in secondary education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department collects information from local education authorities each year on the number of vacant posts by secondary subject. The results of the secondary staffing survey, conducted last year, will be available shortly.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on restoration of the negotiating rights of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received approximately 120 letters on this issue since 1 January 1989 both directly and through hon. Members.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in the recruitment of teachers of shortage subjects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department launched its action programme on teacher shortages in 1986. Recruitment to initial teacher training last year showed an increase in 552
  mathematics by 27 per cent., in science by 9 per cent. and in technology by 39 per cent. over the levels in 1986. The Government will develop their action programme as necessary to ensure a sufficient supply of qualified teachers in these subjects to meet the needs of schools.

  Schoolchildren (Sport)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is proposing any steps to encourage Saturday participation in sport by schoolchildren.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no specific plans at present to encourage Saturday participation in sport by schoolchildren. We hope, however, that the inclusion of physical education, of which sport is a component, as a foundation subject in the national curriculum for all pupils aged five to 16 will encourage those who wish to do so both to participate in sport outside school hours and to continue with sport after they leave school.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in the work of the working party to investigate nursery education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The committee of inquiry on the quality of the educational experience offered to the under-fives will hold its first meeting on 25 May when I expect it to settle its programme of work.

  English Grammar and Verse
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had regarding the inclusion of English grammar and the learning of verse by heart within the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Responses to the consultations on the draft order for English for pupils in the first key stage of the national curriculum have included various comments on the place of grammar and verse learning. These are being considered.

  Parent Registers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place a copy in the Library of the guidance he has issued to local education authorities and schools on the compilation of parent registers for opt-out ballot purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Pupils' Registration (Amendment) Regulations 1988 require every school to maintain an admissions register which includes the name and address of each peson known to the governing body to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school. Sections 60 and 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988 provide for the use of this information where a ballot of parents on grant-maintained status is contemplated or under way. The Department's circular 10/88, and booklet "School Governors: How To Become A Grant-Maintained School", offer guidance on these provisions. Copies of the regulations, the relevant Administrative memorandum, the circular and booklet were sent to every LEA and school last year. The Department also wrote to all chief education officers on 13 February this year, in part about allegations that some
  553
  LEAs were abusing this information. Copies of each of these documents were placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, of 12 April.Official Report, column 526, whether he has any plans to issue guidance to local education authorities and schools on the information to be made available from parent registers to community charge registration officers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department will shortly be writing to the local authority associations on this subject.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has held on the rights of access to parent registers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has held no recent discussions on this topic.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on, and what consideration he has given to, the inclusion of Indic languages as modern foreign languages in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr.

  Number of Pupils

  LEA

  Present

  Taking paid meals

  Taking free meals

  Total taking meals

  ILEA

  240,360

  94,519

  68,845

  163,364

  Barking and Dagenham

  19,488

  5,635

  1,979

  7,614

  Barnet

  35,691

  18,212

  2,858

  11,413

  Bexley

  28,259

  7,238

  1,671

  8,909

  Brent

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Bromley

  31,506

  10,475

  1,794

  12,269

  Croydon

  39,676

  14,623

  3,332

  17,955

  Ealing

  32,658

  10,561

  4,162

  14,723

  Enfield

  33,592

  10,749

  2,770

  13,519

  Haringey

  24,628

  8,269

  4,800

  13,069

  Harrow

  24,709

  11,085

  1,156

  12,241

  Havering

  30,913

  9,177

  1,435

  10,562

  Hillingdon

  26,389

  9,776

  1,698

  11,474

  Hounslow

  26,741

  13,631

  2,761

  16,392

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  14,796

  5,827

  724

  6,551

  Merton

  18,032

  4,438

  1,208

  5,646

  Newham

  35,185

  7,973

  6,022

  13,995

  Redbridge

  26,790

  10,339

  1,576

  11,915

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  14,263

  3,548

  825

  4,373

  Sutton

  19,896

  9,303

  906

  10,209

  Waltham Forest

  26,254

  8,773

  4,266

  13,039

  Bolton

  38,311

  14,571

  5,870

  20,441

  Bury

  23,935

  8,600

  2,701

  11,301

  Manchester

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Oldham

  34,557

  11,786

  6,614

  18,400

  Rochdale

  32,691

  11,931

  6,110

  18,041

  Salford

  32,190

  11,887

  7,749

  19,636

  Stockport

  40,727

  13,462

  4,089

  17,551

  Tameside

  31,118

  12,024

  4,697

  16,721

  Trafford

  26,047

  9,792

  3,382

  13,174

  Wigan

  46,618

  15,812

  6,243

  22,055

  Knowsley

  22,776

  3,113

  8,827

  11,940

  Liverpool

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  St. Helens

  27,505

  11,198

  4,561

  15,759

  Sefton

  38,620

  11,184

  6,739

  17,923

  Wirral

  49,117

  15,360

  10,515

  25,875

  Barnsley

  28,872

  13,761

  4,673

  18,434

  Doncaster

  42,525

  21,473

  7,735

  29,208

  Rotherham

  37,337

  12,757

  6,260

  19,017

  Sheffield

  60,406

  20,784

  11,719

  32,503

  Gateshead

  25,147

  9,186

  5,121

  14,307

  554
  Madden) on 23 March, at columns 683–84. Since then, my right hon. Friend has received a number of other representations from hon. Members—including one from the hon. Member—local education authorities, organisations, parents and teachers about the inclusion of Indic languages as modern foreign languages in the national curriculum. We are at present considering the responses received about the proposals during the consultation period.

  Meals (Pupil Statistics)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the October 1988 census figures for each local education authority for the number of(a) pupils present, (b) pupils taking paid meals, (c) pupils taking free meals, and (d) pupils taking meals in total.

  Mr. Butcher
  The figures are given in the table. They relate to maintained primary, secondary and special schools and are based on the number of pupils present in schools on the day in October 1988 on which the survey was carried out. As explained in my reply of 14 April, the full results of the survey are contained in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publication "School Meals Statistics at October 1988" which will shortly be available in the Library.
  555

  LEA

  Present

  Taking paid meals

  Taking free meals

  Total taking meals

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  34,794

  10,550

  10,579

  21,129

  North Tyneside

  27,094

  12,157

  4,833

  16,990

  South Tyneside

  22,709

  8,052

  4,900

  12,952

  Sunderland

  44,228

  15,434

  9,981

  25,415

  Birmingham

  149,126

  41,522

  39,275

  80,797

  Coventry

  42,158

  9,832

  8,371

  18,203

  Dudley

  37,636

  10,059

  4,748

  14,807

  Sandwell

  43,209

  12,665

  8,274

  20,939

  Solihull

  29,563

  10,157

  2,857

  13,014

  Walsall

  40,391

  15,437

  7,402

  22,839

  Wolverhampton

  36,008

  6,075

  6,534

  12,609

  Bradford

  72,930

  25,277

  15,334

  40,611

  Calderdale

  28,729

  11,763

  3,718

  15,481

  Kirklees

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Leeds

  92,660

  37,662

  13,648

  51,310

  Wakefield

  42,612

  20,657

  5,886

  26,543

  Avon

  121,886

  35,946

  12,886

  48,832

  Bedfordshire

  74,096

  28,678

  6,929

  35,607

  Berkshire

  92,750

  33,407

  4,532

  37,939

  Buckinghamshire

  80,945

  6,087

  3,160

  9,247

  Cambridgeshire

  89,079

  23,717

  5,659

  29,376

  Cheshire

  133,800

  49,470

  14,880

  64,350

  Cleveland

  84,265

  35,839

  21,012

  56,851

  Cornwall

  60,076

  24,791

  5,508

  30,299

  Cumbria

  66,533

  32,432

  6,225

  38,657

  Derbyshire

  128,699

  80,429

  13,574

  94,003

  Devon

  108,956

  44,464

  11,959

  56,423

  Dorset

  71,944

  12,475

  3,180

  15,655

  Durham

  82,556

  37,914

  13,349

  51,263

  East Sussex

  74,451

  25,354

  5,961

  31,315

  Essex

  198,213

  58,693

  12,959

  71,652

  Gloucestershire

  67,305

  15,483

  4,625

  20,108

  Hampshire

  188,331

  45,895

  12,434

  58,329

  Hereford and Worcester

  87,442

  16,942

  5,797

  22,739

  Hertfordshire

  129,066

  57,789

  6,533

  64,322

  Humberside

  121,489

  43,609

  17,518

  61,127

  Isle of Wight

  15,147

  5,305

  1,582

  6,887

  Kent

  188,044

  66,023

  13,099

  79,122

  Lancashire

  193,585

  70,966

  26,946

  97,912

  Leicestershire

  124,901

  39,564

  11,146

  50,710

  Lincolnshire

  75,177

  12,857

  4,521

  17,378

  Norfolk

  91,732

  24,505

  8,590

  33,095

  Northamptonshire

  86,097

  22,895

  6,221

  29,116

  Northumberland

  44,561

  19,914

  4,322

  24,236

  North Yorkshire

  87,435

  38,181

  5,521

  43,702

  Nottinghamshire

  131,941

  44,888

  18,419

  63,307

  Oxfordshire

  64,445

  24,327

  3,108

  27,435

  Shropshire

  54,985

  22,721

  5,787

  28,508

  Somerset

  57,623

  19,777

  3,269

  23,046

  Staffordshire

  141,700

  43,729

  13,834

  57,563

  Suffolk

  79,147

  31,618

  5,335

  36,953

  Surrey

  105,386

  43,443

  3,855

  47,298

  Warwickshire

  65,021

  18,552

  4,732

  23,284

  West Sussex

  81,365

  33,067

  3,347

  36,414

  Wiltshire

  70,895

  22,456

  3,878

  26,334

  Isles of Scilly

  110

  6

  1

  7

WALES

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, with respect to the support grades in his Department(a) what is the number of staff employed, (b) how many vacancies there are and how many of these have existed for over one month and over three months, (c) how many temporary and casual appointments there are and (d) how much overtime was worked by them in London and elsewhere.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The details are as follows:

  (a) Total number in support grades: 111½.

  (b) Two vacancies—both in London and vacant for over three months. However, following recent selection interviews it is hoped to fill these shortly.

  556

  (c) 7 casual appointments.

  (d) The average number of hours overtime worked each week by each member of the Support Grade structure in the Welsh Office:—

  London

  6 hours

  Elsewhere

  0·5 hours

  National Parks
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has had any discussions with, or representations from, county councils in Wales, or other interested bodies, concerning the future of the national parks in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  None; but matters relating to future developments and to the planning system within national parks are frequently the subject of representations to Ministers by a variety of bodies.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sittings (Staff)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, what staff of the House are employed in the House when sittings go beyond 10 pm.

  Mr. Beith
  128 staff from various Departments are on duty on any one night as a direct consequence of the House sitting after 10 pm.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Elections (Proportional Representation)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing a system of proportional representation for elections to those directly elected bodies for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to introduce a system of proportional representation for elections to local government councils.

  Motor Vehicle Offences
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of all circulars he has issued about the operation of section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, within the last six months.

  Mr. John Patten
  Copies of Home Office circular number 86/88 and the second commencement order have been placed in the Library.

  Grand National
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many jockeys have been injured while riding a horse in the Grand National at Aintree racecourse in the last nine years;

  (2) how many jockeys have been permanently maimed after sustaining injuries while riding a horse in the Grand National at Aintree racecourse since 1959;

  (3) how many jockeys have been killed during, or as a result of riding a horse, in the Grand National at the Aintree racecourse since 1959;

  (4) how many horses have been killed during, or as a result of running in, the Grand National at Aintree racecouse since 1980.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office does not obtain or record information about injuries incurred in horseracing. But the Jockey Club has kindly provided the four numbers requested, as follows: 5; 0; 0; 4.

  Chief Superintendent Kenneth Etheridge (Inquiry)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement as to the most recent inquiry carried out in the case of former Chief Superintendent Kenneth Etheridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the most recent inquiry was in 1977, when an investigation was carried out 558
  into allegations against a number of officers, including Mr. Etheridge. No formal disciplinary proceedings were taken against any officer as a result of that inquiry.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if legal proceedings will be taken against any seller or promoter of West German lottery tickets in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the Government propose to introduce legislation to clarify the legal position with regard to the selling of non-British lottery tickets within the United Kingdom prior to 31 December 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is an offence under section 2 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 to bring foreign lottery tickets into Great Britain for the purpose of their sale, distribution or advertisement; we have no reason to believe that the position will be affected by the advent of the single European market in 1992. We have no plans to introduce legislation to amend the 1976 Act.

  Any decision on whether to institute proceedings in respect of an alleged offence under the 1976 Act is a matter for individual chief officers of police. The Crown Prosecution Service is then responsible for deciding independently whether the case should be prosecuted in the courts.

  Saudi Arabia (Visit)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he met and what was discussed on his recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Hurd
  I had a number of meetings with senior members of the Saudi Arabian Government and discussed the scope of intensifying the level of co-operation between this country and Saudi Arabia in a number of fields, including terrorism, drugs, organised crime and police training. I signed a memorandum of understanding with the Saudi Arabian Government to facilitate closer co-operation on these issues.

  Police (Mutual Assistance)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist for coordinating requests from chief officers of police for mutual aid assistance from other forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Mutual aid between police forces has for many years been a feature of British policing. Standing local arrangements for mutual aid are often used and do not require central co-ordination. When the demands on manpower or other resources are such that these arrangements are unlikely to be adequate, requests for assistance may be co-ordinated nationally by the mutual aid co-ordination centre (MACC) which was previously known as the national reporting centre.

  The centre is activated and controlled by the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and not by the Home Office. Day-to-day operations are the responsibility of an officer of deputy chief constable rank, assisted by supporting staff. When the MACC is in operation, as at all other times, the direction and control of police operations

  559
  within a force area, including the control of officers provided under mutual aid, is the responsibility of the chief officer of police for that area. The MACC is responsible for co-ordinating requests from chief officers: it does not have the power to take the initiative in moving police officers from one force area to another.

  The Home Office is today issuing a circular to chief officers of police and police authorities about the mutual aid co-ordination centre. I have placed a copy in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Marre Committee
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General from what outside sources with practical experience of the subjects considered by the Marre committee advice has been sought in the preparation of the Government's response to the Marre committee; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Marre committee was set up by the Bar and the Law Society and reported directly to them. The three Green Papers laid before Parliament on 25 January 1989 contain the Government's own provisional proposals relating to the requirements for carrying out in the future the work presently conducted by the legal profession; and are not a response to the Marre committee's report.

  Baby C
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will seek the permission of the Court of Appeal to place in the Libarary a copy of the medical report considered in the recent Baby C case.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Business Investment
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of business investment in the economy.

  Mr. Major
  The latest figures show that business investment was 14·3 per cent. higher in real terms in 1988 than in 1987.

  Economic Data
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to improve the quality of economic statistical data published by his Department.

  Mr. Major
  The Treasury, Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue are currently involved, with the Central Statistical Office and other departments, in implementing specific recommendations on improving the quality of Government economic statistics included in the recent scrutiny report. The report, copies of which are available in the Library, also made recommendations about the inter-departmental arrangements for the production of Government economic statistics. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 5 April at columns 190–91,560
  the establishment of a separate Government Department, responsible to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bringing together the work of the Central Statistical Office, the Business Statistics Office and some parts of the statistical work of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment. These changes are designed to achieve a significant improvement in the quality and relevance of Government economic statistics.

  Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the commissioners of Customs and Excise will disclose particulars of cases where proceedings for offences are compounded under section 152 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  Section 152 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 is the most recent re-enactment of the commissioners' long-standing power to compound proceedings, that is to offer an alleged offender the option of paying a penalty out of court rather than be prosecuted. This power is used to resolve the majority of customs or excise offences, and enables them to be dealt with efficiently and effectively without burdening the courts or tying up Customs staff in lengthy court hearings. Hitherto, details of compounded settlements have not usually been made public.

  The commissioners, having reviewed their policy on disclosure of compounded settlements, have decided that in respect of settlements made on or after 1 June 1989, details will be disclosed in the following circumstances:
  It will be the Commissioners' invariable practice to disclose details

  (a) to other Government Departments whose statutory responsibilities are directly affected; and

  (b) to the courts for sentencing purposes after conviction, in cases where there has been an earlier compounded settlement for a similar matter within the time limits specified for offences by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

  The commissioners will also disclose compounded settlements under two other circumstances

  (c) to employers when it is apparent that

  (i) the nature of the employment has facilitated the offence; or

  (ii) where drugs offences or indications of serious alcohol abuse are involved, the nature of the employment or duties requires a high degree of unimpaired judgement or faculties.

  (d) in response to enquiries from Parliament or the media about cases which have excited public attention, if disclosure is considered to be in the public interest.

  In all cases, persons considering an offer to compound for an alleged offence will be warned when the offer is made that details of the settlement may be disclosed in the circumstances set out at (a) to (d) above.

  The commissioners have considered the recommendation of Lord Keith of Kinkel's committee on the "Enforcement Powers of the Revenue Departments" (Cmnd. 9440), that the names of all persons making compounded settlements and particulars of the settlements should be published, subject to discretion to withhold the names of persons making full spontaneous voluntary disclosure of their offences. The policy now to be adopted reflects the commissioners' conclusion that, other than in the particular circumstances already described, it would

  561
  not be equitable or make the best use of their resources or those of the courts to depart from the present general principle of non-disclosure. The commissioners' general policy of non-disclosure of details of their dealings in individual cases will therefore continue to apply to cases which do not come within the circumstances described above.

  I am satisfied with this outcome of the commissioners' review.

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any contingency measures to prevent damaging financial upheavals in the event of incorrect retail prices index figures being published as a result of unauthorised penetration of the computer systems.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend

  Section 236 Improvement

  Section 236 Conversion

  Section 244 Provision of standard amenities

  Section 248 Repairs

  1Maximum level of grant per cent.

  Expenditure £ million

  Number of dwellings

  Maximum level of grant per cent.

  Expenditure £ million

  No. of dwellings

  2Maximum level of grant per cent.

  Expenditure £ million

  Number of dwellings

  2Maximum level of grant per cent.

  Expenditure £ million

  Number of dwellings

  1982

  50/75/90

  32·95

  7,302

  50

  2·29

  297

  90

  0·36

  313

  90

  6·53

  7,012

  1983

  50/75/90

  51·11

  8,364

  50

  3·52

  412

  90

  0·80

  423

  90

  40·80

  24,707

  1984

  50/75/90

  49·90

  9,057

  50

  4·42

  611

  90/50

  2·66

  1·185

  390/50

  80·89

  30,827

  1985

  50/75/90

  43·95

  7,505

  50

  5·47

  804

  50

  2·50

  1,242

  50

  62·63

  20,367

  1986

  50/75/90

  46·29

  10·497

  50

  3·21

  792

  50

  1·33

  738

  50

  44·77

  19,426

  1987

  50/75/90

  51·65

  10·729

  50

  2·68

  616

  50

  0·94

  560

  50

  55·99

  18,763

  1988

  50/75/90

  57·77

  10·019

  50

  4·59

  818

  50

  0·53

  353

  50

  74·58

  19·942

  1 Depending on condition of dwelling and financial circumstances of owner.

  2 Temporary rate of 90 per cent. available in respect of applications made between 13 April 1982 and 31 March 1984.

  3 From 1 April 1984 rate for replacement of lead plumbing is 75 per cent.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are grant schemes available to council house tenants for home improvements which they can take up independently of their council landlord.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  House improvement and repairs grants are, in principle, available to all tenants, although they may be given only with the approval of the local authority, both as landlord and as grant-giving authority.

  Riverside Tenants' Hall
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any request to continue with a central Government contribution to the Riverside tenants' hall, Govan.

  Mr. Lang
  The Riverside tenants' hall in Govan has received Government support through the urban programme for the maximum period of seven years, ending in 1990. Further support from public funds is a matter for the local authority.

  Rent Phasing
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what statutory authority rent phasing was operated for tenants of housing associations; for how many years it operated; and what consultations took place about its ending.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 58 of the Rent (Scotland) Act (which consolidated previous legislation) is 562
  the Minister of State, Department of Employment on security of RPI computer systems. It is not our practice to comment on contingency plans.

SCOTLAND

  Home Improvements
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, giving the relevant statutory references, the home improvement grant orders currently in operation; and if he will indicate against each the policy objective, the level of grant, the amount of expenditure incurred each year of operation and the number of homes estimated to be improved.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The primary objective of home improvement grants is to facilitate the improvement and repair of the existing private sector housing stock. The information available, from 1982 onwards, is given in the table. The statutory references are to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

  the statutory authority under which rent increases for secure tenants of housing associations may be phased. These rent increases have been eligible for phasing for 16 years. Paragraphs 23 and 26 of the consultation paper "The Private Rented Sector: The Government's Legislative Proposals for Scotland", issued in November 1987, set out the Government's proposals to move towards the abolition of phasing of rent increases for both secure tenants of housing associations and private sector regulated tenants. This proposal was fully debated during the passage through Parliament of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.

  Tourism
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the effect of section 4 financial assistance on the Scottish tourist industry.

  Mr. Lang
  Over the last three financial years the Scottish tourist board has approved assistance for 337 projects amounting to £12£4 million under its section 4 programme. The total private sector investment represented by these projects is £84 million.

  Health Education
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the budget of the Scottish Health Education Group, formerly the Scottish Health Education Unit and Scottish Council for Health Education in each
  563
  financial year from 1978–79 to 1988–89, expressed as actual expenditure and as a percentage of the total Scottish Health Service spending in each of the specified years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Expenditure by the Scottish Health Education Group since 1978–79 is shown in the following table:

  Financial year

  SHEG expenditure £000

  Percentage of NHS expenditure in Scotland

  1978–79

  1,064

  0·119

  1979–80

  1,252

  0·118

  1980–81

  1,540

  0·115

  1981–82

  1,889

  0·123

  1982–83

  2,136

  0·129

  1983–84

  2,086

  0·135

  1984–85

  2,799

  0·147

  1985–86

  3,077

  0·153

  1986–87

  3,057

  0·143

  1987–88

  3,220

  0·138

  1988–89

  13,326

  0·128

  1 Budget provision.

  Cervical Cytology
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all health boards which operate a computerised call-recall cervical cytology programme for all women aged 20 to 65 years at three yearly intervals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: Borders health board.

  Year £

  Antrim £

  Armagh £

  Down £

  Fermanagh £

  Londonderry £

  Tyrone £

  Total £

  1974

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  1975

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,600

  1976

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39,746

  1977

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21,456

  1978

  597,527

  378,237

  583,402

  591,166

  382,045

  547,404

  3,079,781

  1979

  1,375,719

  734,757

  1,004,965

  1,064,884

  727,903

  1,323,359

  6,231,587

  1980

  2,600,418

  1,319,611

  1,821,130

  2,089,022

  1,693,971

  2,433,079

  11,957,231

  1981

  1,935,521

  949,534

  1,586,863

  2,117,212

  1,471,686

  1,761,168

  9,821,984

  1982

  2,136,111

  1,304,801

  995,931

  2,832,488

  1,446,296

  2,162,547

  10,878,174

  1983

  1,930,281

  1,180,048

  916,977

  1,781,689

  1,320,205

  1,977,257

  9,106,457

  1984

  1,812,487

  1,189,869

  897,376

  1,839,932

  1,193,126

  1,907,374

  8,840,164

  1985

  1,155,334

  725,201

  398,304

  1,407,510

  819,351

  1,393,233

  5,898,933

  1986

  673,313

  193,537

  318,293

  876,892

  356,706

  697,773

  3,116,514

  1987

  419,535

  158,386

  72,294

  767,866

  88,016

  338,492

  1,844,589

  1988

  85,819

  81,803

  13,376

  270,287

  10,077

  89,809

  551,171

  Pollution
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 757, he will list the locations and nature of the water pollution incidents between September and November 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Type of pollution and location

  Number

  September 1988

  Agriculture

  Beragh

  2

  Gortrush

  1

  Reaghan

  1

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether poll tax registration officers are currently empowered to request lists of school pupils' parents names and addresses from local authority education departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: Under section 17(3)(b) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, community charges registration officers may require the regional or islands council and any district council in their registration areas to supply them with such information as they may reasonably require in connection with their functions, being information which the local authorities have in connection with any of their functions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount, in grants, paid out by the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, under the farm and horticulture development scheme in each of the years since 1974 to applicants from each of the parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland

  Mr. Viggers
  Grants paid for years 1975 to 1977 are available only for Northern Ireland as a whole. Thereafter the information is not available by parliamentary constituency, but is on a county basis.

  Type of pollution and location

  Number

  Drumlister

  1

  Fintona

  3

  Eskra

  2

  Dromore

  1

  Plumbridge

  1

  Buninver

  1

  Newtownstewart

  2

  Food processing

  Doogary

  2

  Conneywarren

  1

  Sand washing

  Omagh

  1

  Fallaghearn

  3

  Carrickmore

  2

  Beragh

  3

  565

  Type of pollution and location

  Number

  Sewage

  Omagh

  1

  Seskinore

  1

  Industrial

  Gortin

  1

  Oil

  Gortrush

  2

  October 1988

  Agricultural

  Dromore road, Omagh

  1

  Plumbridge road, Omagl

  1

  Tallysallagh

  3

  Lisnafin

  1

  Beltany

  2

  Gortin

  1

  Food processing

  Doogary

  4

  Sand washing

  Fallaghearn

  3

  Carrickmore

  1

  Sewage

  Dromore

  1

  Omagh

  2

  Knockmoyle

  1

  Industrial

  Greencastle

  1

  Oil

  Dromore

  1

  November 1988

  Agricultural

  Dromore

  1

  Gortin

  1

  Food processing

  Doogary

  1

  Sand washing

  Mountfield

  1

  Greencastle

  3

  Carrickmore

  3

  Omagh

  4

  Sewage

  Arvalee

  1

  Omagh

  1

  Knockmoyle

  1

  Drumquin

  1

  Industrial

  Ballynatubrit

  1

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where the 10 confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were found in Northern Ireland; and what has been done to prevent further outbreaks and to uncover the causes of this disease in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  There have now been 13 confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in various parts of the Province. It would not be appropriate to identify individual producers because of the need to 566
  respect confidentiality as a normal part of the Department of Agriculture's eradication and control policy for any animal disease outbreaks.

  The BSE outbreaks have been fully investigated and there is nothing to suggest that the cause is any different from that in Great Britain cases.

  In order to minimise the risk of outbreaks of this disease increasing, the Southwood committee's recommendations have been implemented in full.

TRANSPORT

  Trunk Roads
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's standards for maintenance with respect to grass cutting, sweeping, scavenging of laybys, windblown litter and the emptying of gullies on trunk roads maintained by county councils as agents of his Department; and if he will review those standards.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Standards for litter clearance on the worst littered sections of motorways are being re-examined.

  Standards for these and other routine maintenance activities are set out in the Department's code of practice for routine maintenance. A copy of the code is in the House Library. The code is kept under continual review in consultation with the Department's agents through the Standing Committee on Highway Maintenance. The application of the code is also reviewed at local level and individual standards are adjusted to meet particular circumstances.

  Buses
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many bus routes in London have been put out to competitive tender; and what consequent cost reductions have been achieved.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand from London Regional Transport that to date it has put 135 bus routes out to competitive tender. It estimates that this has achieved savings of around 15 per cent. of previous operating costs.

  Midland Main Lane
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to obtain a copy of the report by consultants commissioned by east midlands local authorities on the future of the midland main line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have made it clear that I would be interested to see the results of the study commissioned by a group of local authorities on the future of the midland main line. It is for the local authorities to decide whether to send it to me.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what connection the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has with his Department; what representations he has received from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee that concessionary fares on buses
  567
  might he means-tested in future; what other representations, including those opposed to this suggestion, he has received; what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is a statutory body, established under the Transport Act 1985, with responsibility for giving advice to the Secretary of State on matters relating to the transport needs of disabled people. In July 1988, DPTAC submitted a report to the Secretary of State on "Finance for Extra Markets for Public Transport". One of the recommendations in this report was that local authorities should consider targeting their expenditure on concessionary fares more closely to those most in need of such benefits, including in particular those with a mobility handicap. The report did not specifically propose means-testing. We have, however, received a number of letters expressing concern that means-testing for concessionary fares might be introduced.

  As the Government confirmed in their reply to the DPTAC report, it will be for local authorities to decide whether to make any changes in their present arrangements in the light of the proposals in the report.

  London Buses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the timetable he envisages for the privatisation of London Buses.

  Mr. Portillo
  No timetable has been set. Vehicle Reversing (Accidents)

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reportable accidents arising from reversing vehicles have resulted in injuries and deaths for each year since 1979; if he is able to categorise these into vehicle types; and how many have taken place(a) on the highway and (b) off the highway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The tables show the total number of accidents where at least one vehicle was reversing; those where at least one of the reversing vehicles was a car; and those where at least one of the reversing vehicles was a heavy goods vehicle. Only accidents on public highways are reported to the Department.

  Accidents involving reversing vehicles: GB: 1979–1987

  Severity of accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1979

  47

  548

  1,882

  2,477

  1980

  34

  517

  2,089

  2,640

  1981

  37

  538

  2,011

  2,586

  1982

  51

  585

  2,607

  3,243

  1983

  49

  598

  2,792

  3,439

  1984

  43

  588

  2,808

  3,439

  1985

  35

  661

  2,817

  3,513

  1986

  29

  618

  2,926

  3,573

  1987

  38

  612

  2,919

  3,569

  Accidents involving reversing cars: GB: 1979–1987

  Severity of accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1979

  12

  348

  1,327

  1,687

  1980

  14

  341

  1,508

  1,863

  1981

  7

  383

  1,493

  1,883

  1982

  16

  400

  1,952

  2,368

  568

  Severity of accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1983

  21

  413

  2,132

  2,566

  1984

  15

  411

  2,138

  2,564

  1985

  14

  464

  2,154

  2,632

  1986

  8

  442

  2,262

  2,712

  1987

  18

  431

  2,279

  2,728

  Accidents involving reversing cars: GB: 1979–1987

  Severity of accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1979

  18

  71

  188

  277

  1980

  9

  73

  156

  238

  1981

  16

  54

  166

  236

  1982

  21

  63

  192

  276

  1983

  12

  61

  172

  245

  1984

  18

  61

  195

  274

  1985

  11

  49

  168

  228

  1986

  8

  56

  170

  234

  1987

  12

  60

  171

  243

  Vehicle Reversing Equipment
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many European Community countries require reversing safety systems to be fitted on vehicles;

  (2) if he has any plans to introduce legislation requiring reversing safety systems to he fitted on all new vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if in the light of the mounting level of accidents caused while vehicles are reversing, he will consider requiring large commercial vehicles to be fitted with the latest technology to enable obstacles to be detected in the path of a reversing vehicle.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have no plans to introduce legislation requiring any class of vehicle to be fitted with reversing safety systems. We know of no such legislation in any member state of the European Community.

  Audible reversing alarms are permitted to be used on the road as a safety aid on buses, goods vehicles over 2 tonnes gross weight, refuse vehicles, engineering plant and works trucks.

  There are very few serious injury accidents involving vehicles in reverse gear. Most drivers follow the very clear advice given in the "Highway Code."

  Road Assessment Proposals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having on the road assessment proposals for London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consultants for the London assessment studies are currently assessing and testing a wide range of options. These do not constitute new proposals by the Department for roads or rail routes.

  In my many discussions with hon. Members, councillors, and local groups I have taken the opportunity to correct misconceptions about the status of the studies and counter the scare stories about new motorways all over London.

  In particular, I have been discussing the inaccuracies and misleading statements associated with a demonstration on 21 April.
  569
  Each year in London, nearly 500 people die and 50,000 are injured on London's roads. Both public and private transport assessments should help to cut this toll.

  Shipping Accidents (Pollution)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's role in minimising the effect of pollution after accidents at sea.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department of Transport, through its marine pollution control unit exercises the responsibility accepted by Government in 1969 following the Torrey Canyon disaster, for dealing with pollution at sea arising from a shipping accident.

  Contracted aerial and vessel dispersant spraying resources, oil recovery equipment or cargo transfer equipment is deployed, as both necessary and practicable, for the clean-up at sea of oil from an accident which threatens United Kingdom coastal, fishery, seabird, ecological amenity or other interests.

  The Secretary of State has wide statutory powers to give directions or to take direct action to counter pollution following marine accidents. These extend from directing the owner of a ship, the master or the salvor in possession to take or refrain from taking action of any kind whatsoever, to taking control of the ship or sinking or destroying it.

  Traffic Management (Greater London)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria have been adopted by the unit of his Department concerned with traffic management in Greater London for substitution of automatic, or semi-automatic, traffic signals by police on the occasion of routine maintenance works at critical locations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  During the routine maintenance works at critical locations, permanent traffic signals are maintained wherever possible. Manual traffic control is provided by police officers or traffic wardens when signals are disconnected for short periods. Where a safe electricity supply exists, temporary signals can be provided if work is likely to take longer than one week.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the arrangements made for traffic control in East India Dock road adjacent to the northern entrance of the Blackwall tunnel over the weekend of 15 and 16 April.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There were some delays on the A13 and for traffic leaving the Blackwall tunnel on 15 and 16 April. The immediate cause was work on East India Dock road to construct an additional lane to improve access from the A 13 to the Isle of Dogs.

  Advance notice of the roadworks was given to motoring information services. The police were fully involved. We are satisfied that traffic management at this difficult site has been organised as well as the limitations allow.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what study has been made by his Department, or what conclusions he has reached, concerning the effect on traffic flows of one-person operated buses in Greater 570
  London; what effects he expects on traffic flow from the extension of one-person operations to bus routes presently using a crew of two; what advice or instructions he has given to London Regional Transport or London Buses Limited in respect of this policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The statutory duty to provide bus services in London lies with London Regional Transport and it is for it and its subsidiary, London Buses Ltd., to determine the method of operation, having due regard to efficiency, economy and safety. They take into account boarding times and congestion effects in their appraisal of conversions to one-person-operation. I understand they have no plans for any significant increase in the proportion of routes served by one-person-operated buses.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report the number of (a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents involving heavy goods vehicles and long distance lorry drivers for each year from 1979 to the last available year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The table shows the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents involving heavy goods vehicles for each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Total fatal and non-fatal accidents involving heavy goods vehicles: Great Britain: 1979–1987

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  Total

  1979

  940

  15,531

  16,471

  1980

  782

  13,335

  14,117

  1981

  761

  12,522

  13,283

  1982

  786

  12,520

  13,306

  1983

  722

  11,606

  12,328

  1984

  777

  12,173

  12,950

  1985

  728

  12,345

  13,073

  1986

  794

  12,635

  13,429

  1987

  776

  12,866

  13,642

  We cannot distinguish from the Stats 19 accident report form whether the driver is a long-distance driver or not.

  Road Junction (Walton on Thames)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the proposed Surrey county council (No. 5) CPO (1988) for the junction of the A244/C155/D3830 at Walton on Thames.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are two outstanding objections which are being considered.

  TGV Atlantique Line
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request a copy of the report from SNCF on noise resulting from its surveys of the TGV Atlantique line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: I understand that British Rail has a copy of the report which we believe my hon. Friend has in mind. In drawing up a national noise standard we shall wish to be aware of any standards adopted elsewhere, even where trains run much faster than BR plans for the United Kingdom.

  Channel Tunnel
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the options outlined in the South Circular assessment study on the projected increase in freight traffic on the south London rail link from the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: Assessment of options is a matter for the study consultants. They are discussing the potential impact of options with the transport operators.

EMPLOYMENT

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the effect of the increase of petrol prices on the prices index over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the 12 months ending in March 1989 the retail prices index increased by 7·9 per cent. The increase in petrol prices over the same period contributed approximately one fifth of one percentage point to this increase.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many miners he estimates are or have been exposed to noise levels above 90 dBA during the past 10 years; and what is his estimate of the proportion of those so exposed who are likely to suffer hearing damage.

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984–851

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Outbreak of fire below ground and withdrawal of men due to smoke and other signs of fire

  68

  72

  72

  11

  66

  46

  11

  58

  72

  52

  Number associated with conveyors

  17

  28

  20

  30

  24

  2—

  31

  25

  34

  28

  1 15-month period January 1984-March 1985, including the period of industrial dispute.

  2 Not known.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the proportion of miners who suffered disability after working underground for 25 years or more.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of serious injury among mine workers and the proportion of the labour force this repre'cnted in(a) 1968, (b) 1978 and (c)

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is supplied in the table.

  The rate of serious injury among mine workers is calculated per 100,000 manshifts worked.

  Year

  Serious injuries

  Porportion of labour force represented

  1968

  1·07

  1:430

  1978

  0·99

  1:502

  1988–891

  3·35

  1:127

  572
  Mr. Nicholls
  Information regarding the number of miners who have been exposed to these noise levels is not available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed as contractors for or on behalf of British Coal in each of the past five years; and what proportion of these individuals have suffered injury in each of those years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available and could only be obtained, if at all, at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if dust levels experienced in underground operations have increased in recent years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Since 1977–78 British Coal's annual progress report on respirable dust shows a downward trend in the average national dust levels. However, in 1987–88 there was a small increase of 3·8 per cent. over 1986–87 levels. Cutting coal at the face is by far the major generator of dust in mining operations and since 1985–86 the average daily output per coal face has risen by 39 per cent.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of underground fires recorded at collieries during each year since 1979 and the number of those associated with conveyors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is set out: in the table.

  1 Provisional.

  Source: British Coal Corporation and Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he has been given by Her Majesty's inspectors in regard to the use of roof bolts in underground mining operations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has not received any advice from the Health and Safety Executive on this subject.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of accidents involving major injury have occurred in the last hour of the working shift in underground employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information on accident rates does not include details of the relative time in a shift when an accident occurred. However, British Coal conducted a 12-month survey on this topic from April 1986 to April 1987. This showed that of the total of 993 major accidents in that period only 33 occurred in the last hour of a shift. This is less than 4 per cent. of the total.
  573
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what duties he expects to be carried out by the proposed pit supervisors; and what differences will exist in practice and statutory requirement in comparison with those currently exercised by colliery deputies.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend understands that the Health and Safety Commission is currently considering proposals relating to the management and administration of health and safety at mines. Because the proposals are still in a formative stage it is not possible now to state what duties will be carried out by pit supervisors, nor how the future role of deputies will differ from their present role, if at all.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East on 19 April, if he will list those industries in which he estimates there is a significant number of accidents which are unreported; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All cases of fatal injury in the course of work activity are reported to the enforcement authorities. It is not known what proportion of other reportable injuries go unreported, nor is there any firm evidence to suggest that the problem is more acute in certain industries. There are some indications, however, that the agricultural, construction and service sector are subject to significantly more under-reporting than the best estimate of 50 per cent. for employees in all industries and services.

  Employees (Public Duties)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures are being taken to ensure that employees are allowed time off for public duties under sections 29, 30 and 32 of the Employment Protection Act 1978, as amended by the Employment Act 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  An employee may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal that he has not been permitted to take time off. The services of ACAS are also available. An explanatory booklet may be obtained from offices of the Department.

  Action for Jobs Programme
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations have been received from(a) trades unions representing Government information officers and (b) individual officials, concerning the preparation and dissemination of material relating to the action for jobs programme.

  Mr. Cope
  I have no record of any such representations.

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Charge
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost of implementing the community charge in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  Our estimate of the costs, for both capital and revenue expenditure, of implementing the community 574
  charge in 1989–90 in England, based on the Price Waterhouse report, is between £209 million (if all authorities work as efficiently as the most efficient in their category) and £277 million (if authorities maintain their current efficiency). These estimates were at November 1987 prices.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average community charge in each local authority in 1989–90; and if he will make figures available arranged by reference to the controlling party in each such authority.

  Mr. Gummer
  Illustrative 1989–90 community charges will be published once the data needed from local authorities have been received and analysed. To help my hon. Friend, we shall include details of the controlling parties, drawn from the standard reference works.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish tables showing the community charge in each local authority area if introduced in 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  Illustrative 1989–90 community charges will be published once data needed from local authorities have been received and analysed.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has made available to explain the workings of the community charge to the general public.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend has issued a general booklet entitled "You and the community charge: your step by step guide" explaining the whole community charge system. He is also publishing six supplementary leaflets on individual aspects of the community charge. One of these, on exemptions, is already available. The others will cover rebates, the appeal system, the collective community charge, students and the community charge, and second homes. These will be issued over the next few weeks. All of these publications are being made available on request free of charge. In addition my right hon. Friend will send a short leaflet on the community charge to every household in England in May.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average community charge if implemented on 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish exemplifications showing what the community charge would have been if introduced on 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  Illustrative 1989–90 community charges will be published once data needed from local authorities have been received and analysed.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Audit Commission's assessment of the level of benefits to be derived by local authorities from the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Commission has made no such assessment.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the
  575
  Government's planned publicity campaign for the commencement of community charge registration in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 20 January and 17 April this year.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has made any recent assessment of the level of inability to pay the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The community charge is designed to reflect ability to pay. Rebates of up to 80 per cent. of the charge will be available to those on low incomes, and for those on the lowest incomes, income support will include an amount specifically to help with the remaining 20 per cent.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to exempt severe dementia sufferers from payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no plans to do so and will write to the hon. Member giving my reasons.

  Petrol
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of the current level of duty differential between leaded and unleaded petrol on sales of unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of demand for unleaded petrol in(a) January 1987 and (b) the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Uptake figures for the first full month after the Budget increase in duty differential in favour of unleaded petrol will not be available until the end of April. In the month to mid-March unleaded petrol accounted for 6·4 per cent. of the market. I understand from the United Kingdom Petroleum Industries Association that its provisional figures for the whole of March show a market share (on a slightly different basis) of 9·3 per cent. This amounts to more than a hundredfold increase since figures were first made available in April 1987.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of garages in England now stock unleaded petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There has been a tenfold increase in outlets for unleaded petrol since March of last year and the United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association advises me that 38 per cent. of filling stations now stock the fuel.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of demand for unleaded petrol at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) today.

  Bristol Channel (Pollution)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the position over pollution from existing and planned new sewerage outlets into the Bristol channel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Nineteen bathing waters along the Bristol channel coast are identified under the EEC bathing water directive. In the 1988 bathing water season, 10 of these met the directive's mandatory coliform standards. The existing sewerage outlets are operating satisfactorily and a number of new schemes are planned which will bring about local improvements to water quality in the Bristol channel.

  Housing
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last made a speech outlining his Department's plans for improving housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Ridley
  My ministerial colleagues and I frequently refer in speeches to our policies of increasing the supply of affordable housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the housing completion figure for 1979 in the public and private sectors; and what is the latest available figure.

  Mr. Trippier
  In 1979, 91,100 public sector and 118,400 private sector dwellings were completed in England. Provisional figures for 1988 are 24,800 and 159,900 respectively.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations have consulted the local authorities in their area on their budget for 1989–90.

  Mr. Ridley
  Consultation on UDC budgets is not appropriate: their money is voted by Parliament. UDCs are required, however, to draw up a code of practice as to consultation with the local authorities in their areas on the exercise of their powers.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations have established procedures for meeting local community organisations.

  Mr. Trippier
  All UDCs except central Manchester and Bristol have developed arrangements for liaising with community organisations. Central Manchester and Bristol are still formulating their arrangements.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is his intention that urban development corporations should seek to agree a set of objectives about regeneration with local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government encourage co-operation between urban development corporations and local authorities to help UDCs secure the regeneration of their designated areas. UDCs are required, under section 140 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, to prepare codes of practice as to consultation with their local authorities.
  577
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations use existing local plans as a basis for undertaking their regeneration task.

  Mr. Ridley
  There are local plans covering parts of all urban development areas, except Trafford park. UDCs take them into account when preparing strategies for the regeneration of their areas.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations open their planning committees to the public.

  Mr. Trippier
  London Docklands development corporation holds its planning meetings in public. We understand Bristol and Sheffield development corporations also intend to do so.

  Council Tenants (Three Rivers)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the decision of Three Rivers council tenants to reject a transfer to Chess Valley housing association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received no such representations.

  Football Spectators Bill
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) against the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Moynihan
  By 17 April I had received 59 representations in favour and 3,991 against the Football Spectators Bill.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated net saving in terms of public expenditure as a result of the measures taken over the past 10 years to restrict expenditure by local authorities.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have taken a number of measures to restrict expenditure by local authorities which have resulted in substantial savings over the past 10 years.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to ensure that the Thames water authority supplies a high quality standard of drinking water after privatisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Water Bill contains proposals for a comprehensive new system for safeguarding and improving the quality of water supplies. This will include tight quality standards, frequent sampling, the establishment of a drinking water quality inspectorate, and requirements to provide full information to consumers on the quality of water they receive.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for the debt incurred on and management of Kielder water in relation to privatisation of the Northumbrian water authority.
  578
  Mr. Moynihan
  The National Rivers Authority will enter into an agreement with Northumbrian water authority's successor company to deal with the operation of Kielder as a water resource asset. Under the terms of clause 83 of the Water Bill, there will be a general debt restructuring of all water authorities prior to flotation.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the proposed safeguards for consumers contained in the proposals for the privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Howard
  After privatisation our comprehensive new charter for customers would for the first time give consumers rights on the quality of water they drink, the charges they pay, and the standard of service they receive. As part of this I am pleased to announce that public consultation today begins on the draft regulations for the guaranteed standards scheme. This is a no nonsense, no quibble scheme providing a spur to management to ensure the best commercial practices. Domestic customers will be automatically entitled to a payment or credit of £5 for every day, or each occasion, on which a breach of one of the standards of service occurs. This will avoid the frustration customers at present experience because they cannot obtain any compensation in such cases.

  The scheme covers:
  —delays beyond the period notified by the company for restoring water supplies following a planned interruption of supply;
  —delays of more than 24 hours in restoring water supply following an unplanned interruption which has been notified to the company (72 hours in the case of a burst strategic main);
  —appointments which are not kept on the day specified by the company to the customer;
  —failure to provide a substantive answer to written enquiries about bills, or requests for alternative methods of payment within 20 and 10 working days respectively; —failure to answer written complaints about water supply or sewerage services by providing an answer within 10 working days, and a substantive answer within 20 working days if the matter requires a site inspection or further investigations.

  I will place copies of the draft regulations of the guaranteed standards scheme in the House Library along with copies of the Government's leaflet "Customer Standards and Consumer Rights".

  Litter
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for ensuring that local authorities carry out effectively their duties on litter.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are considering placing a duty on local authorities to clean public areas, having regard to codes of practice which the Government would issue. We are also looking at ways of enabling local authorities to enforce the Litter Act more effectively.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his campaign to reduce litter in the streets.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The clean nineties campaign launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and being developed by the Tidy Britain group is proceeding well. I and other Ministers have been associated with projects and other activities designed to increase public awareness of the problem and involvement in solutions.
  579
  We expect the Tidy Britain group's projects to result in codes of practice, setting standards of cleanliness, in time for the launch of Tidy Britain Year-1990.

  We will shortly be reviewing the City of Westminster's fixed penalty scheme for littering to see whether it should be extended nationally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport launched a £1 million litter clearing campaign on 17 March and is monitoring the standards in his Department's code of practice for routine maintenance of roads.

  Association of District Councils
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of District Councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the local associations, including the Association of District Councils, on 29 November 1988. The subjects discussed were the new system of local authority capital finance and the Government's proposals for the treatment of local authorities interests in companies.

  Rates
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those district councils which have increased their rates by 50 per cent. in the last year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are two authorities: Basildon increased its rates by 57·2 per cent. in 1989–90; Brighton increased its rates by 56·7 per cent. in 1989–90.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what date he expects the United Kingdom to meet the Montreal protocol target of a 50 per cent. reduction in the use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Montreal protocol requires cuts of 50 per cent. in the consumption of cholorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by 1999. We expect this to have been achieved by the United Kingdom by the end of this year, 10 years ahead of schedule.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he intends to take to diminish the use and encourage the recycling and safe disposal of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Environment Council of the European Community has, in response to a United Kingdom initiative, called for the Montreal protocol to be strengthened so as to require production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons to be reduced by 85 per cent. as quickly as possible with a view to their elimination by the end of the century. We shall be pressing for this to be agreed as the protocol is reviewed over the next 12 months. Such a change would give further impetus to the search for and application of substitutes and to the recycling of existing CFCs. The question of the safe destruction of CFCs will be considered by the parties to the Montreal protocol at their first meeting in Helsinki next month.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the benefits to be gained by local authorities from competitive tendering in 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department will shortly be letting a research contract to monitor and evaluate the effects of the competition provisions of the Local Government Act 1988. The statutory deadline for the first round of services to be exposed to competition is 1 August 1989. Previous studies have therefore necessarily examined the effects of voluntary competition; these have found savings of 20 to 30 per cent. of previous costs without any reduction in standards.

  European Soccer
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place between the Minister responsible for sport and his European counterparts regarding the readmittance of English clubs to European soccer competition.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not discussed the re-admission of English football clubs to UEFA competitions with my European counterparts. The matter was discussed at the meeting of the Standing Committee on the European Convention on Spectator Violence on 13 and 14 April. The Standing Committee welcomed UEFA's decision to re-admit English clubs in the 1990–91 season subject to the conditions laid down by UEFA.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the president of the Union of European Football Associations to discuss the re-entry of English football clubs to European competition.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand that the President of UEFA has said that he will seek a meeting with me next April to discuss the re-admission of English clubs to Europe in the 1990–91 season. I shall be happy to meet him.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department has undertaken to assess the effect of global warming on coastal communities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In June 1988 the Department published a series of desk studies on "Possible Impacts of Climate Change on the Natural Environment in the United Kingdom". The report identified a number of research requirements for assessing those impacts. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Further studies are now proceeding, including studies on the implications for sea defences.

  Denis Wild-type Houses
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in encouraging building societies to offer advances on Denis Wild-type houses.
  581
  Mr. Trippier
  Good progress is being made in improving the mortgage ability of all non-traditional house types. If the hon. Member has a specific problem in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the water authorities; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend and I met the chairmen of the water authorities on 24 April. Various matters of mutual interest were discussed.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bathing waters were designated for the purposes of the European bathing waters directive in(a) May 1979 and (b) May 1988.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No United Kingdom bathing waters had been indentified in May 1979 under the EEC bathing water directive. In May 1988, 397 coastal bathing waters had been identified. These are listed in the Official Report for 5 May 1988 at column 536 for Scotland, and at columns 571–577 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Widdecombe Report
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making on implementing those recommendations of the Widdecombe report which do not require primary legislation.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have established join working groups with the local authority associations to prepare a new set of model standing orders for local authorities; and to revise the national code of local government conduct.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of empty residential properties in the private sector in England and Wales.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures for empty residential properties in the private sector in Inner London for April 1987 and April 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is reported by English local authorities in their annual housing investment programme returns (HIPI). It is shown at column A84 of "Grossed Estimates—HIPI" for 1987 and 1988. Copies of these documents are in the Library.

  For Welsh figures, I refer the hon. Member for Manchester, Central to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about river pollution in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Howard
  River water quality in Leicestershire is generally of a high standard with most rivers being of good 582
  or fair quality. Some stretches of river in the Soar catchment, at present not meeting their quality objectives, will be improved by 1992 as a result of planned capital expenditure by Severn-Trent water authority to improve unsatisfactory sewage treatment works.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the system of open regulation of river pollution was introduced.

  Mr. Howard
  Since 31 July 1985, the water authorities have kept public registers with details of applications for, and consents granted in respect of, discharges of effluent, both by the authorities themselves and by others. The registers also contain details of the results of the water authorities' sampling of effluent quality together with the results of their regular monitoring programmes for rivers and estuaries and coastal waters. The registers are kept in accordance with the Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations 1985 and section 41 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department has made in evaluating a system of local government finance based on a combination of capital value tax and a local income tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  We published figures illustrating the possible impact of such a system on 23 June 1988. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to provide illustrative figures for any hon. Member who asks, on the same basis as those he quoted to my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on 25 January at column 1013.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to respond to the recent Environment Select Committee report on hazardous wastes.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for an urgent response to the Environment Select Committee report on toxic and hazardous waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's response will be published as soon as possible.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the bill paid by a ward sister living in a typical property in Cambridge under a system of(a) community charge and (b) capital value rates plus local income tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  A ward sister earning £13,000 living in a property in Cambridge worth £50,000 would pay a community charge of £213 (disregarding the transitional safety net) and £465 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures of households accepted as homeless by local authorities following mortgage repossession for England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the quarter ending December 1988 local authorities accepted responsibility to secure accommodation for an estimated 1,800 households under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act, where the immediate reason for homelessness was mortgage arrears.

  For Welsh figures, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that delays on processing council house sales are reduced.

  Mr. Trippier
  As I announced in my answer of 10 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), section 124 of the Housing Act 1988 came into force on that date. It enables tenants whose applications are delayed by the landlord to have rent payments put towards the purchase price of their home. Section 136 of the Act helps local authorities equip themselves to deal with applications by allowing them to use the proceeds of sales to meet the administrative costs.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the protection of the ozone layer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations regarding the protection of the ozone layer.

  Single People (Housing)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to increase the supply of housing for single young people in metropolitan areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have provided for an 80 per cent. increase over the next three years in the finance available to the Housing Corporation to provide new houses to rent and to promote low-cost home ownership including shared ownership. The deregulation of new private lettings will also encourage landlords to make more homes available to rent.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Nature Conservancy Council to discuss environmental policies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Ministers hold regular discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council which cover a range of issues affecting policies for nature conservation and the environment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of the council on 26 January. Both my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness and I have met the chairman and the deputy chairman at meetings held during the last three months.

  Housing Action Trust
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the common problems identified by the consultants in proposed housing action trust areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 16 March at column 322 announcing the publication of the consultants' reports on the proposed housing action trust areas. Copies of the consultants' reports on all the proposed areas were placed on that day in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of carrying out the consultant's report on the proposed housing action trust area in Sunderland.

  Mr. Trippier
  The cost of carrying out the report on the proposed Sunderland housing action trust will amount to £198,233, including VAT, when all bills have been paid. This figure covers consultants' fees and the cost of producing reports and leaflets about the proposal.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will release the necessary funds to local authorities for improving the areas identified as potential housing action trusts.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have made extra public expenditure provision available for housing action trusts. It will be for tenants in the areas proposed for trusts to decide whether they wish my right hon. Friend to proceed with the orders necessary to set them up.

  Rates
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average increase in domestic rates from 1 April.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average increase in(a) domestic rates and (b) non-domestic rates from 1 April 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The average increase in the domestic rates of local authorities in England in 1989–90 is 9·3. The average increase in non-domestic rates is 7·8 per cent.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Sports Council; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I shall be meeting the outgoing chairman, John Smith and the chairman designate. Peter Yarranton, during May. We will discuss a number of issues relating to sport.

  Isle of Dogs (Commercial Space)
  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total amount of commercial space(a) completed, (b) under construction and (c) with planning permission in the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone; and if he has an estimate of the total allowances they will be eligible for.
  585
  Mr. Trippier
  As at 31 March the London Docklands development corporation estimated that 320,000 sq m of commercial floorspace has been constructed since 1981 with another 830,000 sq m under construction. Planning permission is not generally required in enterprise zones but the estimate of commercial floorspace committed in the Isle of Dogs EZ is a further 895,000 sq m.

  Estimates of the cost of capital allowances to the Exchequer are based on the total level of investment in construction in enterprise zones and other national data; they are not available for individual zones.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has calculated the effect on council rents of the proposals in the Local Government and Housing Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under part VI of the Local Government and Housing Bill, local authorities will retain the responsibility for setting rents for their own properties. A number of factors can affect the levels at which councils choose to pitch their rents, including the determinations which my right hon. Friend will make each year as a basis for calculating entitlement for housing revenue account subsidy. A calculation of future rents can be made only one year at a time, when the relevant determinations have been made.

  Homeless Families
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homeless families could be housed immediately if all void properties in the hands of local authorities were filled.

  Mr. Trippier
  At the latest date for which we have information, 1 April 1988, there were nearly 103,000 local authority dwellings empty in England. Of these, nearly 22,000 were available for immediate letting, and could thus, in theory, have taken every homeless family out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation twice over. However, the right dwellings are not all in the right place at the right time for homeless families. Nevertheless, it is urgent and essential for authorities to make effective use of their empty property. The new financial regime for local authority housing will increase the pressure on councils to do so.

  London Housing Survey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the report from the London research centre entitled "The London Housing Survey 1986–87"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes. The Government's housing policies and, in particular the provisions in the Housing Act 1988, which are designed to secure a greater diversity of housing supply, will address many of the issues mentioned in the report.

  Control of Pollution Act
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent of implementation of the Control of Pollution Act.
  586
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The main provisions of the Act have all been implemented, with the exception of a few sections of part II which are contained in the water legislation currently before Parliament. The remaining provisions are either reserve powers or are now thought inappropriate.

  Estates Programme
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have participated in the estates programme; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Over 200 local authorities in England have participated in discussions and received advice under our estate action initiative and by 31 March 1989, 110 had received additional resources totalling £260 million. A further £190 million is being made available under the estate action programme in the current financial year.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many regional offices of the Housing Corporation have now been established; and what resources have been committed to the corporation to ensure effective dissemination of the services available.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Housing Corporation has nine regional offices in England. The Government are providing grant-in-aid of £19·8 million in 1989–90 to meet the administrative costs of the corporation in carrying out its functions.

  Farmland
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much farmland was released for private housing in(a) 1968, (b) 1978 and (c)

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not available. I gave my hon. Friend some MAFF data for 1958–68, 1968–78 and 1978–85 in my answer to him on 14 December. My Department's land use change data, which are not comparable with the MAFF series, show that in 1985–87 the average annual area of land recorded by the Ordnance Survey as changing from agricultural to urban use in England was around 5,500 hectares, of which around 3,400 hectares were for residential use. Figures for 1988 will be published later this year.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to bring empty residential property in the private sector into Housing Association or local authority ownership on a temporary or permanent basis to provide homes for the homeless.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. We believe that the changes made by the Housing Act 1988 will encourage private landlords to let currently empty property.

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association to discuss identity cards.
  587
  Mr. Moynihan
  I hope to meet the chairman of the Football Association and the president of the Football League shortly.

  Water Rates
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the average increase in water authority and statutory water rates from 1 April.

  Mr. Howard
  I estimate that the average increase in all water charges is likely to be 9·8 per cent. for the water authorities and about 22 per cent. for the water companies. The average increase for all consumers is likely to be about 11 per cent. Information on the average rates levied on customers charged by rateable value is not yet available.

  Housing (Transfers)
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for transfers of housing stock he has received under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. Responsibility for the approval of applicants for the tenants' choice provisions in part IV of the Housing Act 1988 lies in England with the Housing Corporation under its powers in section 94. Once approved, and provided the applicant has secured the necessary degree of tenant support for its application and complied with the Housing Corporation's own procedures, applications can, under section 96 of the Act, be made direct to the appropriate public sector landlord.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received a copy of "A Practical Guide to Providing Affordable Rural Housing" by the national agricultural centre rural trust; and if he will make a statemet.

  Mr. Trippier
  My noble Friend the Minister for Housing attended the launch of the guide and congratulated the rural trust on its production. He commended it to all village communities which think a rural housing association might help meet housing needs in their area.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that sufficient rented housing is available in rural areas at rents which those working in such areas can afford.

  Mr. Trippier
  We accept that there is a need for more affordable rented housing in some rural areas. We have therefore increased funding to the Housing Corporation to enable it to quadruple its programme of housing for rent in small villages to 1,100 houses a year. Recent changes to planning guidance, and Budget changes in the tax treatment of land given to housing associations, will also help in increasing the supply of rural housing at moderate rents.

  Rents
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any information about changes in private sector rents since the introduction of assured tenancy provisions under the Housing Act 1988.
  588
  Mr. Trippier
  The provisions have been in force only three months and it is therefore too soon to assess their impact on rent levels.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent assessment his Department has made of the operation of enterprise zones.

  Mr. "Trippier
  A study was carried out in 1986–1987, The report, "An evaluation of the enterprise zone experiment", was published in December 1987. A series of annual monitoring reports is also available. The latest of these, "Enterprise Zone Information 1986–87", was published on 18 April. Copies of these have been placed in the Library. A final evaluation of the zones will be commissioned shortly.

  Local Development Plans
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has been able to gauge the response by local authorities with planning responsibilities to his Department's recent encouragement towards more precisely delineated local development plans.

  Mr. Chope
  My general impression is that many planning authorities have responded very positively to the advice given in PPG12, and have work in hand on preparing or updating their local plans. But a period of preparation and public consultation is required before draft plans can be formally placed on deposit, and it is not possible at this stage to gauge the full impact of PPG12.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to encourage the recycling of waste paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his policy is on the recycling of paper; and if he has issued any advice to councils and other public bodies on this matter.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment is co-operating with the Department of Trade and Industry in setting up a series of seminars, involving local authorities and others to encourage paper recycling where it is economically viable. The first is in London on 3 May. We also encourage local authorities and others to use recycled paper and to recycle their own waste where economically viable. This Department has used recycled letter headed paper for some years along with paper for many other purposes which is made wholly or partly from recycled fibre.

  Inner Cities (Housing)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he decided not to proceed with the research project on housing issues in inner city areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  The original research proposed proved to be too wide in scope but it is hoped to include elements of it in future research work.

  Rural Areas (Housing)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidance to planning
  589
  authorities on the effect of different forms of tenure on the availability of land for affordable housing developments in rural areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. My right hon. Friend made clear in his announcement of 3 February at columns 433–34 that planning conditions should not normally be used to impose restrictions on tenure. He emphasised that the details of arrangements to secure low cost housing for local needs are very much a matter for local decision, and that must include decisions as to what tenure or mix of tenures is appropriate to the particular circumstances of the area concerned.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those parts of the metropolitan green belt with a width of less than 9 miles.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the map and description of the metropolitan green belt in my Department's booklet "The Green Belts" (HMSO, October 1988), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members of the Nature Conservancy Council, together with the bodies appointing them and details of any of their links with field sports.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Members of the Nature Conservancy Council are appointed by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Members are appointed to the council for the personal contribution they can make to its work. They have a wide range of expertise and interests. The current members of the council are as follows:

  Sir William Wilkinson, Chairman

  Sir John Burnett, Deputy Chairman

  Professor John Allen

  Lord Blakenham

  Professor David Bowen

  Lord Buxton

  Mr. John Cossins

  The Earl of Dalkeith

  Dr. Peter Evans

  Professor John Knill

  Miss Audrey Lees

  Sir Hector Monro

  Dr. Bill Mutch

  Professor Gareth Owen

  Earl Peel

  Mr. James Teacher

  Mr. Alexander Trotter

  Mr. Lindsay Waddell

  Mr. William Wilder

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has issued to the Nature Conservancy Council about the conditions which should be fulfilled by the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Country Naturalist Trust for the issuing of grant-aid for the purchase of land.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the Hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 15 February at column 281.

  Peak Park
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last visited the Peak park; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I last visited the Peak District national park on 12 April.

  Village Greens
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has issued to local planning authorities in respect of considering planning applications or compulsory purchase orders affecting village greens.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have issued no planning guidance about village greens. Appendix G to my Department's circular 6/85 refers to compulsory purchase orders affecting commons and open spaces (which can include village greens). The Department also produces an advice note on compulsory acquisition of commons and open land.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the public inquiry reports submitted to him in the last five years, where a decision was made in(a) under three months, (b) under six months, (c) under one year and (d) over one year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Information in the form requested cannot readily be obtained. Since 1984, I and my predecessors have issued 1,711 decisions on planning appeals following a public local inquiry, and approximately 70 per cent. of those decisions were issued within three months of the inspector's report being received. In 1988–89, 81 per cent. of such decisions were issued within three months.

  House of Commons
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now completed his research into the lighting of the Chamber prior to its reconstruction in the 1940s referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 13 February,Official Report, column 30.

  Mr. Chope
  The research has established that, except for the first few months when gas chandeliers were used and found to be unsatisfactory, artificial light in Barry's Chamber was provided from panels in the ceiling. A report was provided last month to the Select Committee on the televising of the House and copies are being placed in the Library.

  Control of Advertisements Regulations
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now give effect to the Government's proposals for amending and consolidating the Control of Advertisements Regulations.

  Mr. Chope
  As foreshadowed in the reply on 4 July last year, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have today laid before Parliament amending Control of Advertisements
  591
  Regulations which modernise the present regulations and introduce some carefully considered de-regulatory provisions.

  Among the new provisions two categories of illuminated advertisement are being permitted without first obtaining the local planning authority's prior consent. These are small signs on "business premises" and on commercial premises in "retail parks", where the sign consists of individual characters or letters, internally illuminated. Because illuminated signs on shops and other commercial premises can sometimes be garish and unsympathetic, or may confuse passers-by, safeguards will ensure that the advertisements permitted for display will not harm amenity or put vehicle drivers or pedestrians at risk. As an additional safeguard, this type of illuminated
  592
  sign will not be permitted in any conservation area, national park, area of outstanding natural beauty or area of special control of advertisements.

  These regulations will provide some worthwhile relaxation of the present unnecessarily restrictive rules, while at the same time maintaining essential safeguards for the quality of the built environment.

  Peak Park (Planning Applications)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for starter homes have been refused by the Peak park planning board.

  Mr. Trippier
  Of the 11 planning applications for "starter homes" dealt with by the Peak park joint planning board since April 1984, five have been refused.

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

Heavy Goods Vehicles: Weight Checks
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many European vehicles have, in the most recent period of 12 months for which figures are available, been found to exceed the weight or dimension limits permitted by law on English roads; and how many were refused entry into the country on these grounds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, in the 12 months to 31st March 1989 the department's traffic examiners weighed 129,007 U.K. and non-U.K. heavy goods vehicles, including 19,027 vehicles weighed in the ports. Of these, 10,624 vehicles were prohibited from further movement for exceeding U.K. weight limits, vehicle dimensions or drivers' hours rules. They included 3,284 non-U.K. vehicles prohibited at the ports or inland check sites.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that clear and comprehensive Answer. Is it now the policy to check any vehicle which appears excessive either in weight or dimensions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we propose this summer to introduce a trial in parallel with our present manual checks which will comprise new automatic weighing equipment at five ferry ports. The equipment will check the majority of heavy goods vehicles coming in at those ports. Subject to the outcome of the trial we shall consider similar installations in other ports.
The figures I gave my noble friend comprise an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the total number of vehicles weighed and an increase also of about 50 per cent. in numbers weighed at ports compared with the previous year. I hope that my noble friend draws encouragement from that fact.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the statistics given by the Minister, particularly the non-U.K. element, are certainly disconcerting. Does the noble Lord recall —I am sure he does—that only recently both Houses of Parliament passed regulations to deal with the weighing of heavy goods vehicles and the stability of roll-on roll-off vessels while in British ports? Has the matter been raised with the European Council of Transport Ministers? It is there that the problem
1266
should be raised if we are to ensure that vehicles making for the United Kingdom are weighed in continental ports.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a slightly different point. The regulations introduced recently, as the noble Lord is aware, were for ferry safety purposes. Therefore, we weigh vehicles only on outbound ferries. That is to ensure the safety of merchant shipping.
As to inbound weights, we obviously take note of the European Commission proposals on the matter; we regard what we are trying to do at our ports as not conflicting with the intention of the directive to speed up flows at frontiers.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I have asked my noble friend this question before. Can he tell me whether the present European ruling on axle weight is satisfactory? Will it be increased either in the near future or the far future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the U.K. drive axle weight limit for five- or six-axle vehicles is 10.5 tonnes. The gross weight limit for these vehicles is 38 tonnes. Both limits are significantly lower than the weight limits in the EC which has a 40-tonne limit for international traffic. Our derogation from the limit is temporary. We have said that we cannot accept any increase in the total axle weight until our roads and bridges have been surveyed and strengthened where necessary. That will inevitably take some years to complete. No early increase in lorry weights is contemplated. In any case, any increase would be brought into effect only with the approval of Parliament.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord said something which I thought rather disquieting. He said that our derogation was temporary. What precisely does that mean? Given the interesting and important figures which he mentioned in his initial Answer, what will be the position in 1992? Shall we then have to comply with the Community regulations? Will all these vehicles which are now banned be able to come here without difficulty?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, not by 1992. I am not certain; I do not think that the derogation has a definite time limit. However, as I said, we shall have to be satisfied that our roads and bridges are capable of carrying the increased weights. That might take some years beyond 1992 to achieve.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not a fact that the derogation will automatically come to an end in 1992? Will the noble Lord be quite clear about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no. I think I can be quite clear that our derogation does not necessarily become invalid in 1992. I think that it is not necessarily part of the 1992 process., if I may put it like that.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, surely the ability to contain the problem depends upon an adequate inspectorate. Is the inspectorate up to strength? Does the Minister foresee a need to increase it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the inspectorate has 63 enforcement weighbridge sites. I believe we plan to increase that figure to 85 over the next two or three years. However, the figure applies to the whole country and not necessarily just to the ports. Obviously, we shall need sufficient numbers of people to enforce that new measure.
Lord Somers: My Lords, until this provision comes into being, would it not be possible to limit the vehicles concerned strictly to certain roads that are capable of taking them? Is that carried out at present?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a rather different question to the one on the Order Paper, which relates to the number of vehicles which are found to be overweight.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that any increase in the weight limit of lorries to 40 tonnes or beyond would depend upon the decision of this Parliament. But is it not the case that under the Single European Act, if a majority of Ministers voted in favour of higher limits on lorries, those higher limits would be imposed upon this country, whether or not Parliament agreed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that point is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, it is a very important point. The Question on the Order Paper refers to the number of vehicles which have been found to be overweight. I have given an answer as regards the 40 tonne limit. My understanding is that that limit can only be brought into effect with the approval of both Houses of Parliament in this country. As regards any further detail on that matter, I shall have to write to the noble Lord.

Schools: Grant Maintained Status
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many schools, under the terms of the Education Reform Act 1988, have voted to opt out of local authority control.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, to date, 39 schools have voted to apply for grant maintained status, and a further 10 will be holding ballots on the issue in the near future. I expect many more to follow.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging and informative reply. Can he tell me when the schools which have voted to opt out will become grant maintained?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the eight schools which have already been approved by my right honourable friend will become grant maintained in September. I understand that if others are approved before the end of May, they will also be able to take up their new status in September of this year.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House how he knows that many more schools will follow?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I expect that many more schools will follow. Interest in applying for grant maintained status remains buoyant with many inquiries directed to the department. I expect those inquiries to increase still further after September when the first grant maintained schools have opened for business.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the considerable difficulties which are now being experienced in the implementation of the national curriculum, what advantage is there in opting out?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not hear the question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the considerable difficulties which are now arising in connection with the implementation of the national curriculum, what advantages are there in opting out?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think that question applies at all.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that every time a school opts out, for whatever reason—whether it is threatened with closure or it sees certain advantages in opting out—it creates enormous difficulties for local education authorities? Is the Minister further aware that it will be even more difficult in the years ahead to secure people of ability and quality to serve in educational administration, if schools opt out in substantial numbers in this way?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the grant maintained schools policy means greater choice for parents. That will introduce healthy competition and lead to higher standards in school provision generally. I should have thought that the right reverend Prelate would like to see that. The policy gives governing bodies and parents greater freedom to decide priorities and to take their school in the direction that they think is best for it.
Baroness David: My Lords, how many of the schools that have thought of opting out have been involved in plans for reorganisation by local authorities?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the exact figues, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in view of the question of the right reverend Prelate, does the

1269
Minister agree that if some local authorities find themselves in difficulties they are the authors of those difficulties?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have to agree with my noble friend.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Minister say why opting out will lead to a higher standard generally, as he put it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there will be a greater amount of competition, and that will lead to a higher standard generally.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a very helpful pamphlet has been written on this subject by Mr. Frank Field of the Labour Party? That pamphlet recommends that church schools should opt out whenever they can.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of that pamphlet.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister further aware that the main thesis of that pamphlet on opting out has been denied by the Church of England Board of Education?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, I was not aware of that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, having regard to the nature of the Question on the Order Paper, is it not highly to be deprecated to have a rerun of our recent debates on the Education Bill?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am quite happy to have a rerun because I think that we are doing rather well.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if by peradventure schools which opt out find themselves in grave difficulties, as it is anticipated could happen in some cases, what provisions will there be for them to return to local authority control and be looked after by the elected representatives of the area?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that question is purely hypothetical.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Viscount that there is no provision for re-entry in the Education Reform Act as passed. Is the Minister's department monitoring opting out, particularly with a view to discovering whether the effect of opting out will be to raise costs for the local authority left with the remaining schools and therefore placing an added burden on ratepayers—no, I beg your pardon, not ratepayers, poll tax payers—in the future?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that the House would like to know that 64 schools from 35 local authorities have engaged in applications for
1270
GM status. Of those schools 22 are in Conservative areas, 24 in Labour areas, one is in an SLD area and 17 are in areas where no one party has overall control. So far as concerns finance, the Government have made clear their intention that schools should be neither better nor worse off financially if they become grant maintained.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I pursue the matter a little further? That was not my question. I am perfectly well aware of that, and of the political point which the Minister has made. My question followed the point which was made earlier. IF schools opt out because they do not care for what their local authority plans to do—which I should have thought, and let us stick to the Conservative authorities, is not necessarily detrimental to what is happening locally—then are they not in principle adding to the costs of that local authority?
Noble Lords: Why?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes, why?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I cannot possibly answer the question but I could put a further question. Does the Minister agree that we must assume that local authorities exist to try to run their education services efficiently? If we make that assumption—and solely for the sake of the noble Viscount I stick to Conservative authorities—does he agree that costs will rise as a result?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord might assume that. I might assume the opposite.

River Thames: Proposed East London Crossing
2.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a final decision has been reached on the construction of the East London river crossing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. Further progress with the scheme is dependent on the outcome of the review of the River Thames bridge design being undertaken by consultants. The consultants are finalising their report and expect to submit it soon. An announcement will be made when the report has been considered. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already undertaken in another place to place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the present proposals would lead to the devastation of Oxleas Wood, which is at least 600 years old and some experts say dates back to the Stone Age? Will the Minister consider the fact that in addition the proposals would mean the demolition of 260 houses in Plumstead alone and that that is enough to cause a great deal of concern? Will the Minister say whether Parliament will have any say in the matter when the scheme is completed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to Oxleas Wood. That is not part of the new inquiry which is being undertaken into the bridge itself, and which is the subject of the noble Lord's Question. There is no proposal to go back on any other part of the route concerned with the East London river crossing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the problem with the bridge that the original design would undoubtedly have produced a hazard for aircraft using City Airport?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is perfectly true. That is why we took the decision to have another look at the design of the bridge and we are awaiting the results at the moment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the inspector's report dealt mainly with the fact that the expected use of the bridge would require a two-way, three-lane, bridge rather than two-lane according to the design which the Government put forward? We were told in a press notice issued in June last year that the review of a new design would take only six months. Why is it taking all this time? Is the review also considering the other point in the inspector's report concerning a segregated cycle path?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the latter point which the noble Lord has raised, about a segregated cycle path. I am not aware that we said that the review would take six months. So far as I know we have always said that the results of the inquiry would be available round about now, and we can expect the results fairly shortly.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, all I can say to the Minister is will he please take a look— —
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have just asked the Minister a question—will he please take a look? I was very polite and courteous to the Minister. Will he kindly take a look at Press Notice 407 dated 28th July 1988? I think that he will find that what I have said is correct.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly take a look. If it has taken longer than we thought it would then I can only apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Minister give me a definite answer that Parliament will be able to decide the matter in due course? Will he also confirm that Oxleas Wood is not definitely to be devastated, as it would be under the plans?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. I cannot give an undertaking that Parliament will consider the matter, although of course the noble Lord has the opportunity to raise these points at Question Time. The Secretaries of State jointly carefully considered the issues before deciding last July that
1272
the scheme should go ahead. They concluded that the additional cost of a tunnel through Oxleas Wood and the loss of benefits from deletion of the south facing sliproads at Shooters Hill junctions were not justified by the environmental benefits of a tunnel. They have no ground to reconsider that decision. I am afraid that so far as concerns Oxleas Wood the question is settled.

Drunk Offenders: Penal Policy
2.57 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider a change of penal policy with regard to drunkenness offenders with a stronger emphasis on treatment rather than custody.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government's aim is to divert drunkenness offenders from the criminal justice system whenever possible. Nearly half are cautioned rather than prosecuted.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is not the cost to society of public drunkenness now totally unacceptable notonly in terms of loss of life—I believe that over half of those who die in police custody have been placed in police custody for public drunkenness—but also in terms of the cost to the police and to the social and health services? Is there no way in which the Government together with local government can direct these unfortunate offenders, many of whom are habitual offenders, to detoxification centres for drying out and further counselling and treatment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Viscount that the level of drunkenness is unacceptable. A circular was produced only recently—in February—on inter-departmental guidance on alcohol misuse. That recommends that local agencies work together in deciding how best to tackle the problem in each area because this is fundamentally a local problem. The Ministerial Group on Alcohol Misuse is to look at the overall position again at its next meeting on 6th June.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, can my noble friend give us any even broad idea of the scale of detoxification treatment and how it has increased, as I hope it has increased, over the past 10 years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in the late 1970s, the Department of Health spent some £2 million over a three-year period on detoxification centres. That was done on an experimental basis. In the early 1980s the Home Office spent about £31,000 over a two-year period on wet shelters. Those experimental schemes were found not to have produced very exciting results.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many magistrates would like a greater choice in sentencing—for example, community service orders combined with rehabilitation—for problem drinkers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an interesting point. I should tell the noble Baroness that there is no custody for drunkenness unless it is associated with some other criminal act. The maximum fine for being drunk and disorderly is £400.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us have welcomed the statement made by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that he intends to see that the police force has a different and welcome appearance so far as concerns the public? Would it not form part of a police endeavour throughout the country if, instead of just cautioning, reference was made to the way in which those habits could be cured by way of a direct introduction of offenders to such centres?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that it is a matter with which everyone must be involved. One cannot leave it entirely to the police. The fact that the commissioner wishes to see the police force with a more acceptable appearance to the public is a good thing. I should say to the noble Lord that drunkenness in all its aspects is to be highly deprecated. It is a matter of great anxiety that it continues at its present level. The guidance given to all local authorities and local agencies is that they must work together on the matter. It is a local issue.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to repeat the question: would it not be welcome if, when coming across drunken offenders, the police throughout the country—quite apart from giving any caution—were to be instructed to induce those people to go to the centres that we are discussing, rather than leave it to local authorities, which, quite honestly, do not necessarily come into contact with the people at all?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; I had misunderstood the purpose of his question. I shall certainly see that the commissioner's attention is drawn to his suggestions.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, with reference to the Minister's answer to a previous question, is it not a fact that, although it may be true that police officers do not normally take a drunken person into custody unless he has committed an offence, there are often occasions when drunks on the street are themselves at risk, if not endangering other people's lives? Is it not true that they are taken into custody because there is no other place to which they can be taken?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is perfectly true that, when a person is found in an inebriated state, he is either cautioned or advised to go home. Periodically, he may have to be taken to a place to "dry out".
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, would it not be possible to have a new order called a "care and treatment order" with a condition of residence at a detoxification centre or a hostel?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion upon which I shall cogitate.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McGregor of Durris and Lord Ezra. As is customary in short debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes and, in that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to 14 minutes. I hope that noble Lords will take particular care to keep within those somewhat generous limits because any breach of them would be very unfair to later speakers in the debate.

Unborn Children (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. I hope that the Government will bring in a Bill of their own next Session to deal with the problems raised by the Warnock Report. If they do not, I shall ask noble Lords whether I may bring in my Bill again.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

"The Press and the People"
3.4 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris rose to call attention to The Press and the People, the 35th Annual Report of the Press Council 1988; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is nothing new in debates in this House on the Press Council. It has been discussed on several occasions in recent years. However, what is new today is the atmosphere in which this Motion will be debated.
Public and parliamentary censure of the press has never been so severe. One main reason was stated starkly by the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, a former chairman of Mirror Group Newspapers and a leading popular journalist of his generation, when he gave the eulogy at the memorial service for his old colleague, the distinguished editor, the late Lord Jacobson. He spoke of the present as an:
"age when investigative journalism in the public interest shed its integrity and became intrusive journalism for the prurient, when nothing, however personal, was any longer secret or sacred and the basic human right to privacy was banished in the interest of instant publishing profit—when the daily nipple count and the sleazy stories about bonking bimbos achieved a dominant influence in the circulation charts…when significant national and international events were nudged aside…Some of these

1275
foolish things…have always been allotted a share of the newsprint…now it is overkill. At the birth of a new century the proprietors and editors of the tabloid press apparently live in fear of instant bankruptcy if they dare to mention in their newspapers the activities of the human race when not in bed".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, expressed the feelings of many newspaper people as well as of Parliament. They help to explain why the chairman of the Press Council has announced, in its recently published annual report, the setting up of:
"a committee to review its role and function and related matters…[and] to construct a Press Council that responds more actively to social conditions [and to the] increasingly hostile [response] to some of the outpourings of some sections of the press".
That taint on the fourth estate has involved deliberate invention, inaccuracy, lies and unacceptable invasions of the privacy of ordinary citizens whose reported tribulations are often in no sense matters of public interest, although they may be fashioned into subjects of interest to the public. One further result has been attacks upon the Press Council, the self-regulatory institution set up by the press more than 30 years ago.
The gravamen of today's critics is the same as that of the Royal Commission which reported in 1977 that:
"it is happily certain that the Council have so far failed to persuade the knowledgeable public that it deals satisfactorily with complaints against newspapers, notwithstanding that this has come to be seen as its main purpose".
We must not forget that present censure is directed against a very small number of tabloid newspapers. The great mass of publications—the many hundreds of regional and local newspapers and the several thousand periodicals—are conducted in accordance with responsible standards and an insignificant number have been arraigned over the years before the Press Council. What must be faced is the conduct of a small handful of national papers. Improvement will depend upon a definition of the real problem. The recently debated statutory right of reply, for example, would not have touched the delinquent tabloids but would have turned the production of quality national and regional dailies and Sundays into a nightmare, with an inevitable curtailment of freedom of reporting and comment.
Throughout the whole democratic world, the press has been under pressure to become accountable—to use present day jargon—to its readers. Several methods have been proposed for that purpose, but in Britain we have put our faith in a Press Council, although notional ombudsmen have been appointed on a couple of papers. For many years, the Press Council's response to any criticism of its constitution, procedures and effectiveness was arrogant, self-righteous and petulant. Happily the past devotion of a small number of leading newspapermen to the work of the council and its present good fortune in attracting a director and chairman of high reputation and standing have reinforced the efforts of the individual members and officers who have pursued the aims of the council selflessly.
In truth, self-regulation has survived in the newspaper industry only because members of the
1276
council have struggled to overcome the constitutional and other defects of the system within which they have to work. Thus the council's independence, if not respect for its adjudications, is well established. The crucial question now is how the council may be assisted to achieve obedience from newspapers to its guidelines and the principles of its adjudications. Few critics are persuaded that at present offenders feel that censure in a Press Council adjudication imposes a sufficient humiliation upon a newspaper, an editor or a journalist. The readiest answer has been given by those who would equip the council with enforceable legal sanctions such as fines or the suspension of journalists.
At the beginning of its work most members of the last Royal Commission sympathised with proposals for tough sanctions designed to strengthen the council's powers of enforcement or even to replace it with a statutory body possessing legal powers to compel obedience. However, an institution endowed with such powers would give potential control over the press to an ill disposed government. As the commission held that all governments are likely to become ill disposed toward the press, it recommended the retention of the voluntary council and pointed to the dangers to the independence of the press and freedom of expression which must lurk in any statutory body.
Moreover, any voluntary or statutory scheme containing sanctions would present severe practical and administrative problems. For example, if fines were to be a sanction their level would be difficult to set. Would it depend on the gravity of the offence or on the ability of the newspaper or the individual journalist to pay? How would such ability be assessed? On whom would fines be levied in particular cases—on the journalist, the editor or the publisher? In exactly what circumstances would it be right for a journalist to be suspended? Should someone under threat of suspension have the right of appeal and, if so, to whom? How could suspension be enforced against a journalist who was a freelance? The difficulty of answering those questions amounts to a grave objection to any scheme of formal penalties involving fines or suspension.
Of the several other overwhelming arguments against such an approach I shall mention only two. First, a statutory body with legal powers can be created only by government, which would acquire in consequence a ready and direct means of controlling the press and undermining or destroying its independence—which is an essential basis of a democracy in which government already wield statutory powers over broadcasting, the other main source of news and information.
The second argument is that journalists cannot be suspended or made subject to legal penalties unless the authority possesses the power to know who they are and where they are. That would require a register of journalists and the establishment of criteria to determine whether or not a person was entitled to be registered. The risks of such a procedure are obvious. None of us is likely to forget that a register of journalists was a central feature of the several UNESCO proposals advanced in the so-called New World and Communication Order, fear of which was

1277
an important factor in withdrawal from UNESCO by the United States and British Governments.
So what remains in the way of sanctions which would not carry a danger to freedom is moral censure. Regrettably that is often ineffectual and especially so as the Press Council has persistently refused to draw up a code of practice and conduct for journalists despite many exhortations over the years. Nevertheless, for 15 years the council ignored the recommendation of the last Royal Commission that a code should be drafted. Until it faces up to the undoubted difficulties and embarrassments of preparing and publishing a code, the public and journalists for whose protection it exists cannot know with certainty what the rules are and therefore whether they merit support or criticism.
Most newspapers in Britain are conducted responsibly but a handful of delinquents have created an opinion among the politically influential which is very hostile to the press. Freedom of the press is always at risk and no one puts it at greater risk today than publishers whose editors pursue competitive advantage without observing standards or restraints. There is a small number of editors who have forgotten that the worst sin that a journalist can commit is to print sensational conclusions deriving from inaccurate and unchecked information.
The Government have just issued what the press must treat as a final warning. In the debate in another place last week on the right of reply they said that:
"the editors and publishers of the national press in Britain are on probation. They have a year or two in which to clean up their act, If they succeed…effective, quick and fair self-regulation that protects the position and rights of the private individual and the small man who cannot look after himself very well will remain the order of the day. That will happen without statutory control of the press. If not, Parliament will certainly return to this issue". [Official Report, Commons, 21/4/89; col. 593.]
So perhaps it is appropriate that the Press Council has recently appointed a new chairman with much experience of the probation service during his long chairmanship of the Howard League for Penal Reform. Mr. Blom-Cooper has made his position crystal clear. He is determined to undertake a rapid root and branch reform of the unwieldy composition and structure of the Press Council and he holds that the acquisition of legal sanctions would defeat his purpose. He is committed to prevent government intervention in the press, and that clearly depends upon the success of the review.
To this end the best—indeed, I think the only—possibility of keeping interventionists at bay and assisting the Government and the reformed Press Council to achieve their declared objectives would be for the publishers and proprietors of newspapers and periodicals to enter into two public commitments. First, they must resolve the long-standing difficulties of agreeing an equitable basis for providing the council with a regular and indexed income sufficient for the swift discharge of its functions. Secondly, the publishers and proprietors, especially the proprietors of the national press, should instruct their editors to observe the code of practice and guidelines laid down by the council. That would be easy to organise, given the concentration of ownership of national titles. Such a
1278
commitment when announced would help to restore public confidence and give a radically reformed Press Council an assured authority to enforce standards set in consultation with the industry and the public.
It has often been said that such commitments cannot be made because the national newspaper industry is too competitive. But the competitive position of each national tabloid will not be endangered if all are subject to the same code impartially enforced by the Press Council. The Newspaper Society, which represents all regional papers, and the Periodical Publishers Association both accept the need for such a commitment. I know of no valid reason why the national press should not follow suit. If some proprietors now refuse to act voluntarily they will put the whole of the free press under the certainty of statutory intervention and whatever that may imply for the future.
Let us not forget the wide range of governmental interventions in the press proposed in the Labour Party's document of 1974, The People and the Media which has not yet been repudiated by that party. If the Press Council fails, assuredly the Government will legislate. The refusal of a small section of the national press to make concessions in proper time and in a becoming spirit has brought the newspaper and periodical industry to a perilous juncture. I am very sensible of the grave danger of direct governmental intervention in the press. I respect the way in which the Government have handled the present pressure for legislation and the support that the Government have given to a self-regulatory Press Council.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, will follow me. I await his contribution with keen interest. The Government have gone to considerable and welcome hortatory lengths to save all newspapers from the folly of a few. I hope that the Minister will be willing to assure the House that the Government's public statements will be accompanied by sharper though private exhortations to those proprietors whose papers have been responsible for the explosion of public censure. Perhaps I may apologise to the House if I have overstepped my time but the indicator stopped working after five minutes. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, a s most noble Lords know, I am chairman of a major publishing group. I feel today that I may be somewhat outnumbered. Last week in another place a Private Member's Bill to give ordinary citizens or groups of citizens the legally enforceable right to reply over newspaper inaccuracies was talked out. Another such Bill, this one aimed at protecting privacy, may be destined to follow it. I view their fate with mixed feelings—primarily, relief.
That there should be attempts to put the measures proposed by these Bills on to the statute book comes as no surprise. The sponsors, whose motives commanded considerable cross-party support, were undoubtedly responding to a growing mood of public disquiet over the antics of a minority of the national press. It is true, alas, that some in the press regard

1279
the regular breaching of good taste, common decency and traditional journalistic ethics, as a form of virility test which they are determined never to fail. Both Bills have been widely, and in my view rightly, condemned as flawed. If either became law it would seriously undermine press freedom. We should approach with extreme caution any attempt to improve standards of press behaviour by legislation, no matter how well drafted.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the words of a former Lord Chancellor the late Lord Kilmuir who opposed attempts to put a protection of privacy Bill on to the statute book in 1961. Lord Kilmuir had this to say:
"We have all seen examples in the press where reports have been published of the private affairs of unfortunate people, which have appeared to us to be in the worst possible taste" —
words, noble Lords will recognise, with an eerily contemporary ring—
"and if it were feasible to ensure by legislation that the press never erred in matters of taste, I should be the first to promote that legislation. But I do not believe that this can be done".
I think that that view is as correct today as it was 28 years ago.
The Press Council has also warned of the difficulties and dangers of legislating against alleged press intrusion. Drawing on 35 year's experience, it says in its latest annual report:
"The council is convinced that the right of privacy is incapable of satisfactory definition by statute law and any attempt to legislate on privacy would be contrary to the public interest".
It continues:
"No statutory enactment on privacy could itself secure that degree of protection which would satisfy those who consider it to be of paramount importance without at the same time curtailing the right of the public at large to be informed about, and know of, matters of public concern. Any such enactment would make it more difficult for the press to carry out those duties of vigilance, inquiry and disclosure which are appropriate to a healthy democracy".
Where does one draw the line between public and private? What is invasion of privacy to some is legitimate disclosure to others. Despite the indignation that some newspaper behaviour understandably provokes, I believe that most members of the public—and I emphasise the public—do not want a legal blunderbuss taken to what is a limited problem. Indeed, as has been commented on before, the general public is somewhat schizophenic—some might prefer the term hypocritical—about the press, above all about that section of the tabloid press whose misbehaviour provokes most criticism.
Let us take, for example, the Sun and the News of the World. Both of these newspapers have been roundly and regularly criticised in recent years. It would not be unfair or inaccurate to suggest that these are the two starring exhibits in most people's rogues' gallery. Some might also wish to include my own group's Daily Star but I do not consider that the Star falls into this category today.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, yet what do we find? Far from being damaged by their notoriety, both the Sun and the News of the World seem to be
1280
positively thriving on it. The Star's circulation is static to falling. The Sun and the News of the World are putting on circulation. Similarly, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the Sunday People—fierce rivals of the Sun and the News of the World—have also gained readers. The message may be uncomfortable, but it is perfectly clear. Millions of our fellow citizens are only too eager to read stories which they claim to find distasteful in themselves or acquired in distasteful ways.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question.
Lord Denham: Order.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I must ask the question. If the noble Lord the Leader of the House or someone else chooses to move that I am out of order, that is his affair. However, is it the case that the noble Lord's paper, the Star, tried to link up with Sunday Sport?
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, I might have lost my place if I had not been ready for that question. We did enter into an arrangement with the Sunday Sport. I am glad to have the opportunity to explain. The basis of our arrangement was this. We took a shareholding in the Sunday Sport. The arrangement was that we would make the Star a more lively paper. We succeeded. However, I chose the wrong editor. The editor left after seven weeks. It was quite clear that the paper he produced was not what he was briefed to produce and he therefore departed. It was a very unsatisfactory episode. If noble Lords have read the Sunday Sport—it has had the largest percentage rise in circulation of any Sunday newspaper over the last year—they will have noticed that during the period of our link up the Sunday Sport improved, believe it or not, because the basis of the transaction was that one of our editors went into the Sunday Sport to clean it up. As soon as the arrangement was discontinued, he left the paper; it then became what it was before. I shall be happy to supply the noble Earl with copies of the paper to prove my point.
Although one can share some of the public disquiet over a few newspapers, the problem is not quite as profound or straightforward as it is often depicted. Above all, as I pointed out earlier, we should constantly remind ourselves that the problem of press misbehaviour is not widespread. There are some 1,800 newspapers in Britain selling millions of copies every day or week. The overwhelming majority of them give their contented readers no cause for complaint. They should not be cause, however, for laws and regulations which stop the many peforming their invaluable and irreplaceable function. That said, clearly something will have to be done to curb the excesses of the irresponsible. Demand for improvement, no matter how ambiguous, will not go away. The Government gave a clear warning on Friday that the press has little more than a year in which to put its own house in order or face the inevitability of legally imposed regulation. It is difficult to see how anyone within the industry could reasonably argue with that. I certainly do not.

1281
At the moment, as noble Lords will know, the Press Council is engaged in a thorough review of its own operations with the aim of making a voluntary self-regulation within the industry more effective. However, the Press Council's prime function under its constitution is to protect the freedom of the press and not to investigate complaints. Even in 1988 there was a marked fall in complaints upheld against the national press—from 59 in 1987 to 40 last year, five of them against my papers. This review of the Press Council must succeed. I would urge my fellow chairmen and proprietors to do what they can to ensure that success.
One of the main reasons we have reached this current pass is that some chairmen have been reluctant to dictate how their newspapers should operate. To do so would immediately give rise to charges of editorial interference, often—such is the contrariness of life—from the very people who now criticise us for not being strict enough on editors. However, it is, in my opinion, our job to set standards.
Another reason, alas, is that some chairmen seem happy to tolerate, even to endorse, any editorial behaviour so long as the circulation is not adversely affected. I am not entirely sure what the solution to this problem is. The main criticism appears to come from another place and not from the general public. The general public are buying more of the so-called down market newspapers and, as I have indicated, their preferences show that they want more of the same rather than less. Is it our function to make a qualitative judgment for them, or should we let them have what they want?
By my judgment some newspapers have lowered standards too much and on these grounds alone—quite apart from the beneficial effect that I believe it might have on our papers if others were forced to raise their standards—I recommend some form of voluntary control. A really effective Press Council may be the answer; but any voluntary body must have respect.
I note the proposed government review of the press. I have no doubt that the chairman of that review, who in my view should be totally independent and not from the Press Council, will obtain not only the views of the public but also those of the industry. The review should include consideration of the laws of defamation and the possibility of allowing judges rather than juries to adjudicate in libel actions. Whatever the conclusions of the review, self regulation based on self discipline and a sense of responsibility is the only right and proper course in a free society such as ours. I believe that newspapers will respond positively to the challenges that lie ahead. The alternative is the loss of freedom of the press.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, has had the courage to come here this afternoon. I only wish he could persuade some of his fellow proprietors who are Members of this House to take part in these
1282
debates. Most of the work of defending the liberties of the press is undertaken here by journalists and not by proprietors. Let him be assured that nobody will ever criticise a proprietor for interfering with editorial freedom when he tells his editors that they must maintain the highest standards. It is only an interference with editorial freedom if a proprietor tells his editors to adopt low standards in the interests of circulation. Those of us who have worked in newspapers all our lives know that the wages of sin is increased circulation.
Our debate has been pre-empted. I had thought that today would be the beginning of a sharply focused national discussion on our anxieties about the press and the press's own anxieties about its relations with Parliament and government. However, this is not the start. It is rather the climax of several recent debates in and out of Parliament. The problem now is not to describe the shortcomings and anxieties of the press, but rather to look at what remedial action can be taken. That something which both the previous speakers have done.
Nobody ever supposed that we should spend our time examining the cases presented in the 35th annual report of the Press Council which, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is the nominal reason for our debate today. We have all read the cases within the report with interest, but it would be as dangerous to comment on the council's decision as it would be to comment on the judgment of an ordinary court on the basis of a short newspaper report. That being so, it seems remarkable how many newspapers taken to the council have got off in the end or have found that the complaint was not pursued. Perhaps having made their complaint and let off steam in that way people were quite happy. Even those tabloids most regularly excoriated in the best circles were by no means always condemned.
There is one page that I should recommend your Lordships to read. It is an hilarious account of the sin-laden Sun bringing the saintly Independent before the council for printing every single letter of a four letter word. The Sun thought that if the paper had been satisfied only to print the initial letter and three dots everybody would have known what it meant and offence would have been avoided. However, the council agreed that the Independent had good reasons for printing the word out, so the Sun was disappointed.
The chief precursor of our debate today came on Friday in another place as the dreaded right of reply Bill was approaching its inevitable demise and it was being boldly prophesised that Mr. Brown's privacy Bill would also shortly die the same death. But the failure of these Bills is not a discharge for the press. It is merely a reprieve, a breathing spell, for the press to put its own house in order. If it does not use that time well, similar Bills will be introduced and will pass into law.
As a newspaperman I have seldom found Ministers showing much insight in their criticisms of the press, but Mr. Renton framed the indictment exactly when he said that he sympathised with the concern about the excesses of the national press, particularly the tabloid press—concern about

1283
doorstepping, about intrusion into private lives, about the system of trick questioning, about taking secret photographs and about harassing ordinary people especially at times of distress when they are least able to cope. Thus the Government announced their plans for a non-governmental review of the general issue of privacy and related matters. Newspapers have been given a year or two to clean up their act, to use the Minister's phrase. If they do not do so Parliament will certainly return to the issue, as Mr. Renton promised.
The Government need not lift a finger. All they have to do is to see that a Private Member's Bill is being properly amended and to let it through. I am sure that a Bill of that kind would not be blocked in this House, only subjected to sympathetic revision. Newspaper owners and journalists must not think that the Government threat is exaggerated. This is one of those rare reforms ardently desired today by all sides in politics. Its adherents are sworn to continue their struggle. There is only one way in which legislation can be averted, and that is by making a reality of the self-regulation which the newspapers now enjoy and neglect. The Press Council has never had sufficient funds to do its job with both speed and efficiency, though things have improved in recent years. But its failure to preserve standards is not to be blamed on its staff, its chairman or on the council itself.
No regulatory body in a self-regulated industry can be effective if some of the members resist the ethical implications of the regulations. It cannot be effective unless the spirit and not just the letter of the decisions is accepted. Newspapers, with rare exceptions, have complied with the rule that they publish adverse findings, but these are no penalty. These findings, carefully expressed as they are, do not upset the readers, do not put off advertisers and they do not affect the social status of the publisher. It was the social status of the publisher which Randolph Churchill effectively attacked. He spoke of one noble Lord as being the "pornographer royal".
The few national newspapers which are the subject of so much bitter complaint today continue to do most of the things which the Press Council has condemned over the past three decades. They yield to the temptations that we have all had and which some of us did not always resist. I worked for half my life at the intellectual or carriage end of the trade and for the other half at the rough end. I am not proud of everything that I did in my youth while working on popular newspapers. I am not so optimistic about the possibilities of improvement but neither am I without hope.
The industry has realised—even the Newspaper Publishers Association has realised—that the Press Council, which has low prestige, must be reformed and given ample funds and new energies. It can no longer shrink behind a faint and minimum profile. It must become known nationally and win the respect of politicians, journalists and newspaper managers.
Already the industry has prepared for its revivification by appointing Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper, QC. He is a great lawyer and, even better, a great
1284
warm-hearted human being with concern for both the well-being of society and the freedom of the individual. If the press has any intention of achieving genuine self-regulation, then Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper is the man to clarify their needs and lead them through the difficulties.
I share the aversion of the noble Lords, Lord McGregor and Lord Stevens, to control of the press by law. There is no way of legally curbing the excesses of delinquent newspapers without curbing and cribbing the vital work of the best newspapers. Such work is essential to the well-being of any decent society and to the health of any democratic system.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and I do not want a Press Council with teeth. The idea of being able to impose fines is ridiculous. There is no fine that one can levy on a newspaper which can give away a single prize of £1 million in a competition; which can spend millions of pounds on promotion; and which, without a public tear or a tremor on the stock exchange, can suffer the costs and damages of a libel action which amount to a king's ransom.
Like the noble Lord, I put hope on a code of conduct being evolved which can win general acceptance. It will not be easy to frame such a code. Privacy is one of the problems with which the Government are especially concerned and it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. As Mr. Blom-Cooper said last night in his lecture at the City University, it is not easy to devise criteria for impermissible disclosures by spelling out the right balance between the individual citizen's interest in being let alone, and the legitimate public interest in finding out. For example, how far are disclosures about a person's private life relevant to his public role?
The Press Council is conducting a review of the changes which its constitution or practices may need. No changes can be made without the consent of the founding and funding bodies; the main associations of the newspaper industry. In a preface to the annual report of the work of the Press Council carried out under his predecessor, Mr.Blom-Cooper said:
"These bodies have indicated their warm support for the review and clearly want to see emerge a re-invigorated Press Council. The need is to construct a Press Council that responds more actively to social conditions, in which the public is increasingly hostile to some of the outpourings of some sections of the press. It is in that spirit that the review will have to be conducted by the council and perceived by the expectant public".
Change can be effective only when certain free newspapers use their freedom to raise their own standards and follow the best newspaper traditions. They are traditions which include vigour, candour, impudence and occasionally even sensationalism. But their owners and editors must understand that if they do not raise their own standards some of that freedom will be taken away by law and the loss to the delinquent papers will be shared by the vast majority of newspapers of whose present standards the nation can well be proud.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am pleased to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that the time indicator read "0" when the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, began speaking as it did when

1285
he finished. Perhaps the same will be true for me. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, whose speech I believed to be honest and courageous, especially when he said that during the time that he worked in popular journalism he did things of which he was not necessarily proud. Perhaps many of us can look back in our careers and say something similar.
I appreciate that the debate is concentrated on the report of the Press Council and particularly the climate of public anxiety about specific instances of intrusion into privacy. However, I should like to widen the debate a little and think of the role of the press generally as regards the picture which it conveys to its readers of our society and the world in which we live. Deep issues lie behind any discussion of the press. We are concerned with issues of truth and the way in which it is presented in our society. I need hardly say that in the religious tradition from which I come truth is fudamentally important. Much is said in the Bible about truth. It ranges from what was said by the prophets of old, and how on occasions it was costly for them to stand for what they saw as being the truth, to the words of Jesus, who said:
"You shall know the truth and the truth will make you free".
In concentrating on the role of the press in communicating truth I do not attempt to deny one of its functions; it is to entertain. Its functions are to inform, educate and entertain. Any newspaper which tried to continue simply by informing and educating and forgot its function to entertain would not last for very long. The problem is that today large sections of the popular press have gone overboard on the function to entertain and have forgotten the information and educational functions which ought to operate at all levels of the press.
In that context, I should like to take issue with the mover of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. It is not that we are so deeply concerned with a small number of those who abuse press privileges but rather, I believe, that the issue goes a great deal wider. The cases which come before the Press Council are only the tip of iceberg. People are concerned about the role of newspapers in today's modern society. For example, I have only to walk into your Lordships' Library to see a display of papers which I seldom see. The popular papers are spread out alongside the quality papers. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the picture of the world and what is important as given in the popular press is totally different from the picture which is so often given in the quality papers. I do not suggest that the quality papers are beyond reproach nor that the so-called "populars" do not do a good job in certain directions. However, often the issues which matter in the world are completely and utterly distorted.
Yet we all know that newapapers are important at every level of society. I am always impressed when, wherever I serve in Britain, people say that the local paper is a dreadful local rag but they all read it. By doing so they obtain a picture of what is happening in their local community, so those papers are vitally important. We need to see freedom within the widest possible limits extended to the press today as to other sections of British society. Incidentally, I believe that the debate over the Salman Rushdie
1286
affair has raised issues of freedom of expression in a particularly acute form and is making many people think much more deeply about it.
I move on from that to say that we should all be more conscious of how vital is the role of an editor, whether of a national daily or a weekly, in these days. Editors have to be very tough and have to take very difficult decisions. I was reminded of that when reading the explanation given by the editor of the Daily Mirror on his decision to publish those harrowing pictures of the Hillsborough soccer ground disaster. He said:
"A newspaper has one overriding duty—beyond that of being popular, selling itself or providing entertainment, It is to tell the truth, especially when it is a difficult and painful truth to tell.
That is what we did on Monday morning. I don't pretend to know all the answers and I certainly don't pretend that we did not cause pain. But we did tell all our readers what happened, what will happen again if we ignore what occurred and what the terrible consequences were of years of neglect and disinterest by the football authorities, local councils, police and government".
That was his decision. I do not necessarily endorse that but I believe that what he says about the need for truth and the functions of truth has an important message. I personally wish that some of the pictures available of what happened to SWAPO and civilian victims of South African defence force; during the events which followed 1st April had been published in our national press because that would have brought home to people some of the events which have happened. Incidentally, I am told on reliable information that some of those pictures would have been published by a certain national daily had it not been for the aftermath of the argument about what happened at Hillsborough and the publication of those pictures.
Therefore, I believe that loyalty to the truth, this very important function of newspapers, is immensely difficult to follow for those working in this field. It can only be achieved and maintained if there is a real interest in society as a whole in the newspaper industry and a recognition of what the industry is there to do. In that context, I believe that we all know that it is not simply what the papers print that really matters but also the weight of the type and the prominence given. That shows readers what the editor or proprietor of the newspaper in question feels to be important in the world in which we live.
I am sure your Lordships are all aware of the familiar story of the bishop who went across the Atlantic in the days when people sailed across the Atlantic. He was guarding himself against the press. When members of the press swarmed on board he was very careful and guarded in his replies and when asked, "Are you going to visit any nightclubs while you are in New York?" he replied, "Are there any nightclubs in New York?" very innocently. On the following day he was horrified to see the perfectly accurate headline, "Bishop's first question: Are there any nightclubs in New York?" Therefore, we need to examine the pressures which there are on people to distort the truth.
I believe that that is something for society in general and is a barrier to truthful reporting. One of the barriers is quite obviously the whole area of the abuse of press freedom, distortion and intrusion into

1287
personal affairs brought about by a failure of certain newspapers to use their freedom in the right way. That is one way in which truth easily becomes distorted.
The other subject of national debate is the area of restrictions on press freedom possibly brought about by the Government themselves. Those restrictions can go right against the right in a democratic society of people really to know what is happening.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about those two areas: the failure in responsibility among members of the press themselves; and, secondly, the danger of too many Government restrictions clamping down on our right to know. We all have personal experience of the abuse of press freedom and misuse of the power which the press has. I should like to give one particular experience, which comes from the Lambeth Conference last year. Perhaps I may say that one reason why I believe that the debate goes much wider than a small minority of those who abuse press freedom is because I do not enjoy being told by visitors from overseas that they are appalled at the poor standards of our press and newspapers in this country. That may be a sweeping generalisation but it comes from many people.
At the Lambeth Conference a group of Australian bishops wrote a letter to the Lambeth Daily on the reporting of the first week of the conference, in these terms:
"Despite a generous allocation of column inches, the substantial part of last week's reporting bore next to no resemblance to the conference as we have experienced it…We frankly have a suspicion that this failure of the secular press to 'get it right' may result from the tendency of some journalists to write to a pre-conceived formula, from which they are unable to free themselves, perhaps under an unconscious but understandable pressure of need to fulfil their own gloomy pre-Lambeth prophecies".
The worst instance of that at the Lambeth Conference was the disgraceful treatment by the popular press of a very carefully worded resolution about the struggle in southern Africa. As your Lordships may remember, the Lambeth Bishops said that they supported those who were consistently in favour of non-violent methods in southern Africa but they understood that in certain circumstances, when all other means had been exhausted, some people would turn to methods of violent resistance. The headline appeared among popular newspapers, "Bishops bless terror". They did no such thing and that headline was a gross abuse of press freedom and responsibility.
One is bound to say that poor standards in the press are the result of the pattern of ownership in Britain today. I believe that any inquiry set up must be deeply concerned with this question of ownership. What can one expect from an influence on the press, however much editors say that proprietors do not interfere, when one reads, for example in Harold Evan's book Good Times, Bad Times, what Rupert Murdoch said when he made a bid for the Observer back in 1976? Evans said that he was cynical in a droll way as he described what he would have done with the Observer:
"All that third world garbage would have gone. It doesn't sell papers. So would Trelford".
1288
Trelford was editor. Therefore, I believe that the question of ownership is absolutely vital when considering the standards of the press.
What about this quite disgraceful sniping at the BBC which takes place in certain papers today which undoubtedly, when one looks at the pattern of ownership, have an axe to grind? I hardly need to remind your Lordships that the BBC, with all its deficiencies, is the envy of the world as a means of communication and presentation of truth in many different fields in our society.
Therefore, patterns of ownership are important, as is the element of fierce competition which goes on in the world of the popular press. It seems to me that there are many fallacies in this field of competition. It is an illusion to suppose that competition necessarily means greater choice or, indeed, that it preserves quality. In many spheres it can mean that. We are all grateful and make use of resources arising from competition carried out through advertising, which enables us to buy things more cheaply in the shops. However, when one applies that argument to other sides of our national life, then it begins to look very different and, as regards the press, the struggle for more and more circulation can depress the quality in a way which is deeply damaging in this country.
Why? Human nature is rather like Gresham's Law: the bad can drive out the good. As we have already been reminded, some newspapers thrive on notoriety. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said that millions are only too eager to read stories which they claim to deplore—of course they are. That is human nature. However, your Lordships will come across many examples where people read the stories but would still deplore the system which produces them. It seems to me that that is the voice to which we should be listening.
The other main threat to truthful reporting comes from Government restrictions. That is something about which we should be extremely cautious. I am sure that none of your Lordships enjoyed reading the comments of the director of the World Press Freedom Committee in Washington about American reaction to Britain's new Official Secrets Act, which was one of shock. He said:
"'The country where our freedom began seems to be ending its own freedom', he said.
The plans to reform the Official Secrets Act would be 'completely unconstitutional' in the United States",
because the Americans put their emphasis on freedom of information.
I conclude by giving a very warm welcome to the announcement by Mr. Renton in the debate in the other place last week about the setting up of a commission to look at some of these matters—the law of privacy and related matters—and I express the hope that the related matters will indeed be widely drawn. We want a wide-ranging, independent commission to look at these matters which will include questions of ownership.
Finally, I believe that in Britain today we need more discussions across the disciplines about these major ethical questions that face us in the mass media and particularly in our newspapers. It is sad

1289
to relate that I have had some experiences in my past ministry where attempts to get journalists together to consider these matters have been strongly resisted. They are very good at telling other people how they should conduct their lives but perhaps not so good at listening to what is said to them. Perhaps that could be improved.
4.1 p.m.
Lord WinstanleyMy Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. As he well knows, I nearly always agree with what he has to say to us. I particularly endorse his wise words about the importance of the concentration of the ownership of the press in a very small number of hands and, if I may say so, sometimes in hands that are not all that clean.
It is also a pleasure to participate in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. I enjoyed his words but I feel that he was unnecessarily modest in repudiating his early career and saying that he was not all that proud of it. He has every reason to be proud. I used to buy the newspaper in Manchester which he edited. I actually paid for it; and I carefully read it. I can assure noble Lords that, somewhat unusually, it was in English! Nowadays there are few papers that one can say that about.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to say that I was speaking about the time when I was a boy reporter and not when I was an editor.
Lord Winstanley: Of course, my Lords, but the fact the noble Lord's papers were in good English was unusual. I think that highly professional sub-editors now seem to be an extinct species when I see some editions of the so-called quality press.
I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris for giving us the opportunity to debate this immensely important subject and to do so at a time when it is extremely topical. Indeed, I cannot immediately recall any time during the lifetime of this Government when a debate of this kind would not have been topical. This subject has remained topical throughout the lifetime of this Government and it will continue to be topical for a very long time.
I have two reasons for intervening in this debate. First, I have spent much of my life professionally as a journalist—not just on television but in writing for the press. Secondly, I am perhaps a little unusual in being one of the very few people in your Lordship's House, if not the only one, to have taken a national newspaper before the Press Council and to have done so successfully. It was an enjoyable experience. The newspaper concerned was the Daily Mail. That seems to be appropriate because it is my view that it was Lord Northcliffe with the Daily Mail at the end of the last century who began the downward spiral of press standards by abandoning the old, somewhat elitist notion that a newspaper should appeal to the intelligent few. He frankly, openly and knowingly appealed to the unintelligent many, knowing that that would increase circulation.
1290
Therefore, it was perhaps appropriate that it was the Daily Mail.
My complaint was based on a report in the Daily Mail about a decision by Members of another place to increase the secretarial allowance which was headlined:
"MPs vote themselves more money".
The report contained several comments about more money for their wives or girlfriends who they could take away on attractive conferences and so on. I engaged in a dispute on the matter with the then editor, and in association with me at the time was Mr. Michael Foot. He was not in favour of taking the complaint before the Press Council because he did not believe in the Press Council. I understood his reasons. He was extremely wary of any kind of control being placed upon the press and I entirely agreed with him about that. Nevertheless, I felt that since the Press Council existed we might as well have a go at it and find out how it worked.
The experience was extremely interesting. The editor of the Daily Mail—I cannot remember who he was—found it to be an extremely unpleasant and discomfiting experience. He was angry and resentful at having to sit at the inquiry all day, give evidence and wait to hear an adjudication against the Daily Mail for publishing an improper report which was entirely misleading and which the paper then had to correct.
Like others, I had always regarded the Press Council as something of a toothless creature, and I still do. As Mr. Blom-Cooper says, he wants it to stay toothless. I believe he is right. I do not want to see the Press Council with teeth. I have read every word of the report. Some of it is excellent. Chapter 1 merely consists of Mr. Blom-Cooper's foreword, which is excellent, though I think the punctuation could have been vastly improved with good sub-editing. Chapter 2 merely consists of the facts and figures of a number of cases considered. However, Chapter 3 is an analysis of all the cases to come before the Press Council during to year and it makes appalling and distressing reading.
There is case after case in which the journalists have clearly behaved abominably and in an unpardonable way, with intrusions into people's privacy and all sorts of other offences. There are offences against taste—I do not think we can legislate to improve the taste of journalists—and all sorts of infringements against decent and normal behaviour. Over and over again one reads of such cases but at the end of each the complaint is rejected. A complaint about outrageous behaviour and the publication of a totally false report by the Sunday Sport is rejected, and so on. However, occasionally one stumbles across a complaint being upheld. On looking into it, one finds that the case is not worse than the others which were rejected; it is merely a case that appears to infringe a particular rule that the Press Council has adopted in order to make its work easier and to have some kind of base line.
Speaking as someone who was a professional journalist, I have to say that reading Chapter 3 of this report makes me feel deeply ashamed of being a life member of the National Union of Journalists.

1291
I say that because I believe that the only hope for the future is not in legislation—the noble Lord is absolutely right; we do not want legislation—but we might have it if the papers do not improve. How can they improve? They can improve only if the journalists themselve improve; but how can we hope for that and what can we do about it?
My noble friend suggests that those who own the press and those who have power within the newspapers should issue orders to their employees to change their editorial policies and make their journalists behave better. I do not place any great hope in that. I hope it will be done, but I doubt it. I am bound to say quite sincerely to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, that, although I agree with much of what he said and that any kind of legislation or strict controls would be dangerous, I do not honestly think that his speech encouraged me to believe that somehow the owners of newspapers will take steps which might in fact reduce their circulations.
This is all about circulations. We live in a strange world, do we not? If the facts given to me are correct, more people every Sunday buy the News of the World, and presumably read it, than buy all the other Sunday papers put together. That makes one worried about standards of public taste, but what can we do about that? I do not know. I am not so worried about the political influence. I well recollect at the 1945 general election, in which I took a close interest and an active part, that a Labour Government were returned with a large majority. Of the people who voted Labour at that election I would estimate that 99 out of 100 were reading newspapers every day which told them to vote Conservative. Therefore, I am not so worried about the political influence of the press, but I am deeply worried about its constant influence and undesirable effect on the lives of ordinary people. What can we do? What is the hope for the future? It is certainly not in legislation, but perhaps in better behaviour.
I advance one suggestion that has been in my mind for some time, but I doubt whether all my noble friends on these Benches will agree with me. What can the law do? In civil law when someone brings an action against a paper for libel they win and the paper pays damages but does the same thing again the next week and the week after. It is true that when one particular paper had to pay out large amounts three times within a month it began to think a little carefully. It seems that when a newspaper is conducting a campaign to increase circulation and it offends and prints what is proved in court to be lies about an individual, substantial damages are awarded. The paper pays up happily and then carries on in the same old way.
I hope that we might consider a situation in which a judge, having found for the plaintiff in such a case, will be able not only to award damages but also to order the paper to suspend publication of one, two, three or four issues.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, what about the readers?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, if that happened, I feel that the newspapers might listen.
1292
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, asks about the readers. The readers cannot be suspended from buying the newspaper, but at least it could be made unavailable, and that would affect the paper. I know that there are dangers in steps of that kind. But I should like to see some changes, and that is one step that would bring about change. The real answer is for the public to change and buy better papers—or what we think are better papers—and at least not to buy the newspapers that we consider to be very bad. We cannot do anything about that by legislation, and neither can we do anything about it in the debate.
Possibly we can set a better example here in your Lordships' House. It is not a matter for the noble Earl, but for the Library Committee. I sometimes wonder why the authorities in our House pay so much money for so many copies of the Sun. I accept that we should have one copy so that we can have a look at it, but there should not be many copies. We should think a little more about having more copies of the Guardian and the Independent. I do not mind a great many copies of the Daily Telegraph because, though I do not agree with its politics, it has very high standards of journalism and reporting. It also has very wide coverage. I believe that The Times has changed greatly in recent years. I am not sure that the tables in our Library should always be absolutely covered with copies of The Times. At any time of the day any noble Lord can go into the Library and find as many copies of The Times as he wishes, but he will search in vain for a copy of the Independent or the Guardian because we do not get enough of them. Change can only be brought about by influence, and perhaps we should start using that in our own Library.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris: unless journalists improve their behaviour they are possibly tempting or encouraging governments to introduce legislation. Whatever that legislation, I should be opposed to it whatever government introduced it. I should like to see the need for that legislation disappear, but that can only happen if journalists themselves and those who control them take the necessary action.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, by chance I appear to be the fourth successive speaker in this debate who has had connection with journalism in Manchester. My experience there included a major scoop. I was the first person to have published in an article the secret protocol to the Nazi-Soviet Pact that has recently been printed in Lithuania, thus showing that what Manchester thinks today Lithuania will think tomorrow, but only after a lapse of some decades.
I believe that the right reverend Prelate was right to remind us that one can interpret this Motion much more broadly than a mere consideration of this report, because the question of the press, its content and freedoms, is a perennial one. I would not altogether agree with some of his own strictures on it. It is true that the United States has constitutional safeguards against intervention by a public authority. However, there are so many other factors

1293
that detract from the quality of the American press that no one who has spent any time living in the United States could possibly not miss the wider coverage and greater variety of the British press and above all the far wider coverage—with the single exception of the New York Times—of events in any part of the world outside the North American continent.
We must look at each individual country and ask what are the merits and the defects and how far these can be related to press structure. The difficulty is that all of us are convinced that freedom of the press is a good thing but we interpret it in different ways. Historically it has been interpreted in different ways. In the course of the great democratic revolutions of the 19th century when there was clamour, among other things, for freedom of the press, what was meant fundamentally was freedom of opinion. The revolutionaries wanted the right to say that the Government are a bad government or that there should be a better one. They wanted to say that the Government should not have done this or that. As regards the agitation taking place in China, the protesters are asking for very much the same thing.
On the other hand, freedom can be interpreted as the freedom of journalists to behave in ways which would be considered deplorable by any other section of the public. If any Member of this House were to pursue a private citizen up his garden path or poke a camera through his window, it would be considered reprehensible. The difficulty about the Press Council and the report we are discussing is that under its present terms of reference it is necessarily restricted to what is actually printed. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, if one reads all these cases and how they came about, one learns a good deal about what people thought objectionable in print, but to only a limited extent does one learn what they consider objectionable about the way in which the material was obtained.
In that regard I found the report very uninformative because it gives no dates for the items complained of so there is no possibility of checking them for oneself with the newspaper file. No dates are given as to when a matter was looked into; when the newspaper was informed of the conclusions; and when, if at all, it printed a correction or an apology. Mr. Blom-Cooper has to improve the presentation of the Press Council's activities quite apart from his plans to improve its effectiveness. It was made clear in the very helpful opening speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that Mr. Blom-Cooper intends to look at the subject as regards structure and function.
In this respect I ask my noble friend the Minister a specific question. Members of another place were told on Friday that the Government are to have an inquiry of some kind into the issues that have been raised in two Private Member's Bills. What is the purpose of the inquiry; what will be its terms of reference and how does it relate to the proposed inquiry by Mr. Blom-Cooper? One can have too many people looking at the same subject at the same time and then arriving at different or even conflicting conclusions.
1294
The comment that one must conclude with is the one that I have already made. We must continue to distinguish between freedom of the press and freedom of behaviour by journalists. I agree that that can hardly be done by legislation because one cannot legislate for good behaviour. One can legislate if the behaviour turns into a criminal offence such as breaking and entering.
Generally speaking, journalists are usually too clever to indulge in criminal activities in pursuit of information. Therefore something like a professional code of conduct is necessary. It must be one which the profession works out for itself. Whether the Press Council can assist, particularly as the National Union of Journalists does not support the Press Council at the moment, or whether it is a matter for the National Union of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists, is not for someone outside the profession to say. However, the public would be relatively happy if the press could cope with these intrusions into private life, and perhaps especially into private grief, and leave, despite what the right reverend Prelate has said, the discipline of the market in its various forms to deal with what newspapers actually print.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Hemingford: My Lords, as a journalist and an editor it is my view that there is some danger in the present hue and cry over press standards that we shall get the matter out of proper prospective. I say that while being grateful for the measured approach which many noble Lords have adopted in what they have said. However, there is a tendency, when a ball starts to roll, to be tempted to go too far. I hope that we shall not go so far as the Empress Dowager of China who 90 years ago said:
"As newspapers only serve to excite the masses to subvert the present order of things and the editors concerned are composed of the dregs of the literary classes, no good can be served by the continuation of such dangerous instruments and we hereby command the entire suppression and sealing up of all newspapers published within the Empire, while the editors connected with them are to be arrested and punished with the utmost rigour of the law".
Sometimes people might be too tempted by an approach of that kind.
Obviously, one has to admit that the press itself has not put its case at all well. In particular we have allowed ourselves to be represented as people pursuing their own vested interests regardless of the interests of others. In Mrs. Thatcher's Britain it is a mistake to allow that label to be pinned on you, as many noble and learned Lords have been reminded recently. I believe that the legal profession has put its case against reform rather badly, and I hope that the press will learn from its mistake. Of course there is a fundamental difference between the law and the press. The law is a closed profession in which disciplinary measures can be taken against those who break the rules: the press is not, and must not be allowed to become, a closed shop.
The reality is that the principal freedoms which the press desires to secure are those of the ordinary citizen—freedom of speech and expression, freedom to be partisan and freedom to comment. The problem arises over what should happen if those

1295
freedoms are abused and how one is to decide whether or not they have been abused. The great danger is that the remedy may be more damaging than the abuse. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, to whom we are indebted for being able to debate this issue today, has often said in the House that the price of a free press is some bad newspapers. Bernard Levin was saying much the same in one of his splendid columns a couple of years ago when he wrote that free speech was for swine and liars as well as for upright and honest men and that any legally permissible view, however repugnant, was less dangerous promulgated than banned. It is wise, I believe, to bear those injunctions in mind when considering reform of the Press Council which everyone in the newspaper industry is now doing.
My earnest hope, like that of other noble Lords who have spoken, is that the review of press law which the Government have announced will result in no special law for the press. We wish to be judged as any other citizen would be judged and not as a special interest group or a closed profession. It was a very sad day when, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, journalism was for the first time put in a special category in British law. We should go no further down that road. What we could do is break into the vicious circle which exists to an extraordinary degree in Britain. It runs something like this. One gives as little information as possible; the press is able to print only what it can get; and one can then use its inaccuracies as an excuse for giving it no more information. This is what Ralph Nader, the distinguished American campaigner, had in mind when he said at a freedom of information meeting a year or two ago:
"You must be very excited to be living in a country where the exercise of common candour is called courage".
I may be the only one of your Lordships present in the Chamber today who has appeared as an editor before the Press Council. It happened 16 or 17 years ago and I was found to be partly at fault. I felt that the verdict was unfair to my paper but I printed it fully giving it a prominence at least as great as that of the report upon which it commented. I did add a short note in the leader column explaining why I felt it was unjust. While I would not claim to be particularly hard bitten, I do not think that I am particularly averse to controversy either. I certainly did not enjoy the experience of appearing before the council. A great deal of work had to be done to gather material to put before it. The oral hearing itself, though not intimidating, was not an occasion that one would relish repeating. I mention that trivial case only because it is absolutely typical of cases taken up by the Press Council. The great majority are dealt with straightforwardly by editors. Indeed there have been only 10 occasions in 35 years on which editors have refused to publish the findings of the Press Council. That is something else to bear in mind.
I am not, however, saying that all is well and that no remedies are required. Editors are inclined to be far too defensive where corrections are concerned. Some years ago I stumped around the country trying to persuade my fellow editors to give greater promin-
1296
ence to the existence of the Press Council and to invite aggrieved readers to make use of it. The response, I am afraid, was disappointing. A common view was that it would encourage troublemakers and lead to a good deal of time-wasting correspondence. The reluctance of editors to make proper apology when they have erred is curious considering how disarming a full-blooded apology can be. Most of them must have sat down to write a thundering denunciation of some public figure or other only to find that he or she has apologised and has to be congratulated rather than condemned.
I believe that there is a degree of complacency about current practice but that it is perfectly true, as some noble Lords have said, that the chief offenders are few in number, though perhaps wide in circulation. The Association of British Editors, of which I am the secretary, conducted a survey last year which showed that the great majority of editors were very conscious of their responsibility to get things right and to correct what they got wrong. Its chairman, James Bishop, said at the time:
"Editors are naturally concerned to be on the best of terms with their readers, and they won't be if they are seen to be acting unfairly or with no regard for the truth".
The national newspapers which responded to the association's questionnaire all stressed the importance of getting things right first time and publishing corrections when they did not. One in four provincial editors said that he offered an unqualified right of reply to inaccurate or misleading reporting in his newspaper, and of the rest, all but 2 per cent. said that they did not carry contentious material at all and claimed to have informal policies that worked to the mutual satisfaction of both journalists and the public. It is not always easy to satisfy complainants. In its response the Daily Mail said that there was sometimes no telling what kind of satisfaction a complainant wanted; but it added:
"history says that we have almost always been able to accommodate people with complaints by showing a willingness to correct matters when they are plainly wrong and by not showing weakness in our replies and procedures when it is a contentious matter".
I think that that last point is most important.
If there is room for improvement in the attitude of editors towards corrections and the Press Council, there is also a need for reform of the council itself. As noble Lords have heard, the council is already embarked upon a study of its procedures and I share the hopes which have already been expressed in that respect. Many interesting proposed changes have already been. mooted. Fundamentally, the need is to speed up the proceedings, to make much more noise about abuses of the freedoms to which I have referred, to upgrade the membership of the council so that its verdicts demand more respect and to avoid the kind of penalties and punishments as mentioned earlier in the debate, which will send everyone scurrying for the protection of the law. We must also strive for a consensus among journalists that those who publish lies or invent stories are beyond the pale. Here the public could play its part by not subsidising such behaviour.
I spend a good deal of time on the training of journalists, which is also important. However, like

1297
most training in British industry, it could be improved. But there are encouraging signs that employers are prepared to exercise their responsibility for it more energetically. Indeed, I came from a meeting only this morning at which I think that process was advanced. We should neither expect nor hope that journalism will court respectability to the point that it ceases to do its job. As that excellent and respectable journalist, Gerald Priestland, wrote:
"Journalists belong in the gutter because that is where the ruling classes throw their guilty secrets".
A press so dull that it aroused no ire and hurt no feelings would not, I believe, be useful; but, although newspapers ought to be entertaining, they should not be produced as a branch of show business without regard for the truth. That balance has to be obtained not by statute or government fiat but by the ebb and flow of public opinion on the pebbles of the press.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for having enabled this subject to be debated at a tragically opportune time. I must declare that I am not a newspaper journalist or a proprietor, and nor do I intend to write my memoirs. I approach the debate purely as a consumer of newspapers, both national and regional. In fact I believe that the regional and local newspapers in this country set a very high standard. Very often the news coming from Fort William or Fowey is of more interest, or even sometimes better presented, than some of the news which is presented in our national newspapers.
When it comes to taste, there is one very difficult problem facing newspapers, especially when a major tragedy is reported either in words or in picture form. I say that because there are times when the publication of a picture—I make no reference for the purpose of this debate to any particular picture—can draw attention to the hazards of a certain incident and the distress caused thereby. I am thinking here particularly of accidents. The very greatest care must be taken not to infringe bad taste or to cause unnecessary distress to relatives or close friends of the victim or victims concerned. It is not always easy to keep to the rules and within bounds in this respect. This most interesting report, The Press and the People, especially chapter 3 to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred, highlights some extremely distressing cases. However, it is not for me as a layman to comment upon the credit or otherwise of the decisions taken. I am quite sure that the Press Council will have gone into such matters most carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, made one very important point regarding the training of journalists. Like many noble Lords, I have had certain dealings with the press. Journalists and reporters have a job to do, but some of them are unaccountably young. They come to interview one, no doubt with the best of intentions, but they seem at times to have no idea how to approach a subject. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have some comments to make as regards any facilities which are being made available for an increase in the training of newspaper reporters, most of whom, I believe, do an excellent
1298
job. However, in some cases—and this is often the fault of the newspaper proprietor concerned—I believe that these young people are sent out on difficult assignments and distress can be caused as a result.
There is of course the question of priority of interests. What do readers really want'? Do they want to know the implications of what will happen to this country and other countries after 1992? Obviously the newspapers, other than the tabloids, will deal with such questions more fully. But do people want to learn about a spy scandal or any other scandal concerning a public figure? I rather think that some organs of the press are being rather naive in thinking that people want to learn the latter; it may be said that the former does not interest a great many people. I certainly hope that that is wrong.
I have spoken in this debate because I had a certain experience with a tabloid newspaper back in 1958. A very young and close relative of mine was invited to a family wedding. At the ago of two, she was alleged in a newspaper report to have drunk champagne. A headline appeared in that newspaper indicating that. Needless to say, she did not drink champagne. However, we had a visit from a member of the Temperence League reminding us of the contents of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Suffice to say that the newspaper concerned apologised. My reason for mentioning that incident is that, first, there was the accusation of breaking the law of the land and, secondly, if 18 years later she had drunk too much champagne people may have thought, "Well, if she did that at the age of two, no wonder she is like that".
I think that this debate impinges upon such matters. I am quite certain that many noble Lords and other people up and down the country have faced similar problems. I make no criticism of the young reporter concerned. Indeed, he had a job to do. But a humorous incident like that can lead to accusations being made against the relatives that the person concerned is breaking the law.
What will an inquiry bring about? We have the civil laws of libel and slander. What is reported is often one thing to one person and something else to another person, particularly if it is scandal. If it is something completely untrue there is recourse to the law.
When I go abroad I read not only the newspapers of this country but also those of other countries. I think that the standards of the press in this country on the whole are infinitely higher than those of some newspaper journals on the other side of the Atlantic, where appalling lapses of taste have taken place.
The debate has served a useful purpose, particularly at a time when there have been a number of major tragedies regarding which all organs of the press have come under criticism. However, I believe that on the whole they have acquitted themselves well.
4.42 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have listened to a series of very interesting speeches, including that by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. In these

1299
matters affecting the press I usually turn for guidance to my noble friend Lord Dudley. On this occasion he may think my remarks somewhat temerarious, but doubtless he will treat them with his usual tolerance.
I think that we must agree that we are faced with an intrinsic problem of the utmost difficulty. It is 18 years since I started the first debate on pornography in the House. I laid it down at that time that we all dislike pornography, but we all dislike censorship also. That was the problem as I stated it 18 years ago. Indeed, my noble friend attended that debate. That is the problem today. I received a document this morning from a very gifted feminist group, the members of which are making yet another approach to this. Although I applaud their endeavour, I cannot say that they have finally solved the problem that has troubled us for so long.
There is little doubt that today we are faced with an issue even wider than pornography. Two years ago when opening a debate on the tabloid press I stated:
"in recent years the tabloid papers have become more sensational, more unfair, more careless of truth, more intrusive into private lives, more ready to persecute and stir up hatred and more inclined to lean in a pornographic direction".—[Official Report, 18/2/87; col. 1176.]
That was two years ago. No one has disputed it in my presence since that time. I suppose that most people would be inclined to say that it was as true today as it was then.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon, winding up in his usual masterly fashion a year later a debate on press standards that I had opened, said in reference to much of the material:
"It is done on the basis that you must bring back to your editor stuff that will presumably improve the circulation of your paper, regardless of the moral issues involved and regardless of what you do to human beings".—[Official Report, 13/1/88; col. 1330.]
So spoke the noble Lord rather more than a year ago. I do not think that he would wish to retract that today. He may wish to go even further.
In previous debates I have brought forward examples of journalistic atrocities. I shall not weary the House with those today. I shall give just one example following the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I touched on it in an earlier debate. Not very long ago the News of the World carried a front page story about an alleged brawl in which I was involved, in the course of which I was supposed to have lashed out at a security guard. The thing was practically impossible. Apart from my age and debility, and no doubt the extraordinary fitness of this young fellow trained in karate and other arts, the fact is that there was a glass panel between me and him so the thing was total nonsense. It was just a lie. It was impossible to obtain what was called an apology. As I said earlier, I found it too expensive, not being Jeffrey Archer and not having my noble friend Lord Mishcon to advise me, to pursue it legally. Eventually, after a lot of argument, the newspaper printed my statement, but no correction or apology for a transparent lie. That is one aspect of the behaviour of the tabloid press, and it illustrates the problem that we have today.
1300
I do not think that the quality press is completely devoid of guilt. There are papers that hover on the borderline, as one might say, of being tabloid or quality. What of the Daily Mail? What of the Daily Express, whose proprietor I was so pleased to hear today? (I must apologise for having interrupted him.) Roughly speaking, one can say that the quality press made no reference to Pamella and the other papers made no reference to anything else for a time. That is the broad distinction between them. The Daily Mail is serialising this lady's memoirs, so I do not think that the distinction can be drawn very clearly. However, we have a problem: there it is, this great evil, in front of us.
Two difficulties have cropped up in recent years in addition to what I call the fundamental difficulty of interfering with freedom of the press in the interests of trying to clean up the media. On the one hand, as recent debates of the House have shown, there is no confidence whatever in the attitude of the Government towards freedom of speech. There is a general recognition, at any rate in wide sections of society, that the Government are no friends to freedom of speech. To hand more power to them is therefore very repugnant to people of liberal mind.
If one looks at it from the point of view of the Government, there is great difficulty about interfering. I say nothing about the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, who is no doubt impeccable in these ways. Let us think of Mr. Murdoch for a moment. There he is, a gentleman—an American citizen these days—who controls one-third of our press. Everyone agrees—I have never found anybody who disagrees—that he is the gentleman who has dragged the press down a long way in recent years. It is asking for a kind of heroic sanctity on the part of Mrs. Thatcher that she should send for him and say, "Look here, you have to clean up your act". He might say, "I am doing all I can for you, I am representing you as the greatest woman in the history of the world—what more can I do?". She might say, "But unfortunately a number of good Conservative people are very upset about all this". He would say, "I have sacked the editor of the News of the World"—which I believe has happened—"because he brought too much sex into the paper". That I believe is factual. She might say, "Is there any less sex now?". He would say, "I should not say that, but the intention is there". That is the kind of dialogue, and it shows how unreal this is.
We have to consider what sort of pressure can be brought to bear. Previous discussions in the House—for example, debates that I have initiated—have shown that unless proprietors are tackled nothing whatever will happen. It is a question, first, of tackling them; and secondly, how one tackles them. Either there is the "softly softly" approach of the kind that I have indicated a little crudely today or there is some sanction. I think that there must be a sanction. We all agree that we want a stronger Press Council, one with teeth which can make things uncomfortable for newspaper proprietors. If they continue in their evil ways nothing will happen. Those are my thoughts.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, this is the second occasion in the last two years on which the House has had the opportunity to discuss a report of the Press Council.
My noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris and I participated a little time ago in a similar debate which also took place at a time when sections of the British press were under severe criticism, which in our judgment was fully justified. Our debate today takes place at a time when there are indications that there is a majority in the House of Commons for some form of legislative action against the press. It is true that the Right of Reply Bill was derailed during its Report stage last Friday evening. But that was only because a minority of the House were able to delay proceedings until the Bill's time ran out at around 2.30 in the afternoon. The Protection of Privacy Bill which also has strong all-party support is still to come.
I accept at once, as one who is strongly opposed to both Bills, that the conduct of a section of the tabloid press has become entirely unacceptable. A number of newspapers have abused their power in a shameful fashion. The rights of the private citizen have been violated; stories have been invented and vendettas have been waged against citizens in no position to protect themselves. The Press Council has been seen to be weak and vacillating, quite unable to restore public confidence in its value and despised by that section of the press which behaves most abominably.
Let me give just two illustrations of this. We had a debate on exactly this subject in the House some time ago. After the arrest of Mr. Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper—a man who at his trial was convicted of 13 murders—the Press Council carried out a special review of the conduct of the press, in particular of allegations that substantial sums of money had been passed or offered to relatives of Mr. Sutcliffe. The council did this after the Queen's Deputy Private Secretary, in a letter to the mother of Mr. Sutcliffe's final victim, expressed Her Majesty's "sense of distaste" that such sums were being offered to his family and friends.
What was significant in this episode was not only the cold and deliberate fashion in which a number of newspapers violated the Press Council guidelines which had themselves been established after the Moors murders case. The central issue was the way in which the press responded to the criticism of the Press Council—a body on which they were represented. The Daily Mail, for instance, was censured for not only failing to disclose material plainly germane to the Press Council's report, but for having repeatedly been in contact with Mr. Sutcliffe's wife for over three months—and I quote the Press Council—
"setting out to deceive Mrs. Sutcliffe"
and for behaving in such a manner as artificially to create and sustain a cheque book journalism market in her story. Their explanation, said the Press Council, amounted to an admission of gross misconduct.
1302
What was the response of the editor of the Daily Mail? He said that the Press Council's report was
"short term, short sighted and smug".
He added that their criticism demonstrated that,
"Yet again the Press Council still does not truly understand the concept of a free press".
That, my Lords, came from a man described as the present Prime Minister's favourite national newspaper editor. I wonder what her response would have been if the BBC had responded in a similar arrogant and contemptuous fashion to justified criticism of that kind.
Then there is the case of Mr. Murdoch's News of the World. Its legal manager, Mr. Douglas, himself a former member of the Press Council, denied that his newspaper had paid or would pay any money to the relatives of Mr. Sutcliffe. Unhappily for them, Mrs. Sutcliffe's solicitor demonstrated that the News of the World had offered £110,000. When taxed with this, Mr. Douglas said that he would not enter into any futher correspondence with the Press Council. Indeed he indicated that the council had no business reading his correspondence in the first instance.
Those two incidents and a similar one involving the Daily Express, together with countless others, show all too clearly what is the attitude of some Fleet Street managements to the Press Council. They are prepared to lie without hesitation and then to bluster. It is little wonder that the Press Council itself has become demoralised and that its critics—many of them reasonable men and women—have now persuaded themselves that only legislation can curb the excesses of a section of the tabloid press.
I wish now to explain why I believe that this view is entirely mistaken. One of the proposed remedies is a statutory press commission, the members to be appointed by the Home Secretary. An aggrieved citizen would be given a legally enforceable right to have what is described as a factually inaccurate statement corrected. Are we really prepared to contemplate a situation in which a government-appointed body is to be given powers of this kind—an authority that is not available in any other free society in the world?
It was argued in the House of Commons that this would help the little man. In some cases I have not the slightest doubt that it would. But what would happen is that it would be used by powerful interests, both in Government and in the private sector, to shackle a free press. There would be some carefully orchestrated complaints from dubious figures in the City and politicians anxious to frustrate the proper work of investigative journalists. It would be said that the press had behaved badly and that they had damaged their reputations. Then this commission of government-appointed nominees would presumably commence their inquiries. They would have to determine what was a factual inaccuracy—not quite so easy as the sponsor of the Bill believes, if I may say so. Then presumably they would have the power to order a correction in that newspaper.
I believe that the same criticism can be directed at the second Bill introduced by Mr. Browne. That is the Bill dealing with the right to privacy. Again, no doubt some ill-used private citizens would derive

1303
some benefit from such well meaning legislation. But the cost would be immense. We live in perhaps the most secretive society in the western world. Such legislation, if enacted, would make it still more secretive.
As I have indicated, I am firmly opposed to any form of legislation of this character. But I also accept that a policy of total inaction is unacceptable. Let me make two suggestions. First, as regards the Press Council, under its new chairman I think it should be given the opportunity to bring forward its own proposals for dealing with the present serious situation. Mr. Blom-Cooper has begun to do this, as we see from the speech he made recently, and I welcome that. However unless he receives the support of the entire British newspaper industry—and that includes Mr. Rupert Murdoch—his task will be impossible. If, for instance, the Sun is allowed to rubbish every adverse finding of the Press Council given against itself, public opinion will inevitably conclude that self-regulation is a farce.
Secondly, I think that Ministers also have some responsibility in the matter. They are keen, as we all know, to lecture broadcasters on what they perceive to be their failings. But they adopt a remarkably different attitude to the constant excesses of newspapers who support them passionately in their own editorial columns.
As we all know, one of the central problems we face at the moment is the consequences of Mr. Murdoch's ownership of a substantial part of the British press. He has done more than any other man to lower the standards of journalism in this country. The Sun is one of the nastiest newspapers published in any Western democracy. However, it is also commercially successful, so there has been a stampede by other tabloid newspapers to follow it down market. I believe that if the Prime Minister were to tell Mr. Murdoch that the conduct of his tabloid newspapers had become totally unacceptable to her, it would do more to stop journalistic standards falling still further than any short-term action by the Press Council.
I certainly welcome the announcement of an inquiry into current malpractices by the press. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I have some doubts about it. I should like to know, for instance, what the terms of reference of the inquiry will be. I am also slightly concerned that the inquiry members are to be given only 12 months to carry out their work. Nevertheless, I think that, given the degree of parliamentary concern in the House of Commons, it is right to set up such an inquiry.
My own view remains clear. I believe that it is essential to stop this country drifting into the acceptance of press laws which would be administered by the nominees of Ministers. In that course lies immense damage to our democracy. However, I fear that we shall get such laws unless national newspaper proprietors, led by Mr. Murdoch, start taking their responsibilities seriously. They must demonstrate a will to change the deplorable conduct which has brought us to our present condition.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder how much of noble Lords' speeches in a debate dealing with the freedom of the press, will be reported in the press of tomorrow. I shall look with interest at such publications as are presided over by Mr. Murdoch, who appears to have featured individually in many of the speeches, but not always to his credit.
I shall follow that understatement of the year by dealing with the matters that lie before your Lordships in this interesting debate. The debate was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, with his usual capability and great knowledge of this subject. I cannot help thinking that possibly one should start off on the basis that Parliament will always try to safeguard the freedom of the press and regards, without any doubt at all, the unacceptable face of what in my old-fashioned way I call Fleet Street as endangering that freedom to a great extent.
We touched on the privacy of the individual and on unacceptable methods of behaviour by certain journalists. But I wonder whether we have gone deeply enough into the harm that is done by invasion of privacy, which cannot in any way have the defence of public interest, in any proper definition of that term. I believe, without any question of doubt, that both in the United States and in this country some portions of the press have thought it perfectly proper in order to increase circulation not only to invade the privacy of men in public life but also to invade the privacy of members of their families and that of their intimate friends. I wonder how many men and women your Lordships know, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, who have been deterred from entering into public life, to which they could have made a great contribution, by this possible invasion of privacy.
I wonder how many candidates for the presidency of the United States, the status of which has not always been of the highest, have been prevented from standing on the basis that they were not prepared to have their families' privacy invaded. They may not mind their own privacy being invaded, but they want their children's privacy to be left alone. They consider that if their children unfortunately become drug addicts it is enough of a problem for the family without that information being plastered all over the front pages of every newspaper.
I wonder, too, how much pain has to be suffered by the most loyal and the most hard-working Royal Family that we have ever had. It is a bad state of affairs when a newspaper brandishes with pride the fact that some confidential correspondence has been placed in its hands in the most mysterious circumstances, and publishes the fact—it is not of course publishing the contents of that correspondence—that it has handed the correspondence back to the Palace. Any dignified newspaper would have taken those letters—I trust no copies would have been made—and sent them back immediately without anyone knowing about the matter, and without publishing the fact that the letters had ever entered that newspaper's possession.
So it is not just a question of little Mr. Jones, or anyone else who is very deserving of keeping his

1305
privacy, but of fundamental ways of carrying on public life to the best advantage of the nation. I wonder, as all your Lordships have done, how we should deal with this matter. First of all, I believe all of us have agreed that interference by statute and by the sanctions of the law is the least desirable way of dealing with the matter and carries with it all the dangers of which we are all aware. Once the law and Parliament step in to interfere with the press, a very dangerous state of affairs arises.
So one thinks in terms of the Press Council. How much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who pleaded for a code of conduct and said that it was about time that a brave Press Council produced one. The Press Council has a very brave chairman at the moment. He is a colleague whom I am proud to have in my profession. I hope that that code will be produced because at least it will clarify something. I looked at Chapter 3 of the report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred. One of the headings of that chapter was "Matters of Taste". I therefore inferred that if good taste was breached, the publication concerned would be subjected to the censorship of the Press Council. I looked at the very first item which came under the heading. It concerned the front page headline of the Sun, which was entitled "Pulpit Poofs can Stay". The finding in the adjudication of the Press Council stated that:
"The headline was vulgar and intended to shock. Its coarseness would offend many readers and be found insulting to homosexuals, but the Press Council is unable to say that it was likely to encourage hatred of them. The complaint…is therefore rejected".
That finding came under the heading of "Matters of Taste". If that heading has any meaning at all, it can only mean that matters of taste are matters that the Press Council is supposed to deal with when it censors publications. I believe one cannot impose fines as they will not mean anything. However, one could return a finding which did not simply state "objection upheld", "complaint upheld" or "complaint rejected". Perhaps one could return a finding which stated "unacceptable journalistic behaviour". If the censoring body found that unacceptable journalistic behaviour had been entered into in a certain case, and the newspaper concerned had to print that finding, or if it did not its competitors undoubtedly would, would that not result in the language we want? We do not want simply the words "objection upheld", "complaint upheld" or "complaint rejected".
Time is short and the House will want to hear the Minister very much more than it wants to hear me. However, as my final point I wish to refer to something which is in my view terrifically important. Reference has been made to the fact that in Hansard of 21st April in another place, Mr. Renton, the Minister at the Home Office, made an announcement that:
"the Government have decided that there should be a review of the general issue of privacy and related matters—areas with which both Bills are concerned".
He was dealing with the Bills we have discussed in the debate this afternoon.
1306
"The review will be conducted outside Government and will aim to report to the Home Secretary within a year … Decisions have still to be taken on who should be invited to chair the review and the precise terms of reference. A formal announcement will be made in due course".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/89; col. 593.]
I hope that that review will cover matters other than privacy. I hope that it will look at the law of defamation. I hope that it will also look at matters to which the learned chairman of the Press Council referred in a lecture which he delivered last night. That lecture was referred to by my noble friend Lord Ardwick, but he referred to another part of it. In that lecture there was a most interescing suggestion which I believe will especially interest the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, whom we are all delighted to see join us at the end of this debate.
The suggestion was that we look again at the tort, which could include not only defamation but also the loss of dignity or damage to the dignity of the individual. That would be a new tort in our law. This is how the chairman dealt with the matter:
"If injury to reputation is properly to be treated as an adjunct to the individual's self-esteem, there could be a single tort of protection for the person. The definition of this tort, which would be an amalgam of defamation and privacy, would run along these lines. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of personal information calculated or intended to cause or did cause distress, annoyance or embarrassment, or damage the reputation of another, is actionable, unless otherwise justified on the grounds of the nature of the personal information and the legitimate public interest (if any) of such information".
I hope that the government review will at least look at that suggestion. It could do a great deal which the two Bills in the other place would not have been able to do.
I hope that the press of this country—it used to be called the great press—will pay attention to some of the very worthwhile speeches that have been made in your Lordships' House today, not least by the brave proprietor who came to the House, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, to make his contribution. I hope that it will lead to self-regulation in order to minimise if not completely destroy those who have sullied the good name of the press.
5.13 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has done your Lordships' House a service by giving your Lordships the opportunity to discuss the 35th annual report of the Press Council which was published last week, and all that goes with that. We have heard a cross-section of speakers, including a newspaper proprietor, an editor, a journalist, a bishop, consumers, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. My contribution has yet to come, but it will be the least significant. A cross-section of speakers and interests has been displayed this afternoon.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I was glad of the welcome that he gave to my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate. It was good that we should hear the views of a newspaper proprietor, even if at one period he was, curiously enough, mildly supportive of his own newspapers. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said he was glad that the noble Lord had come because it was always left to journalists

1307
defend the press. If that is so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, normally carries out that task very effectively. I agreed with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester when he said that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, was courageous, open and honest.
It has been a valuable and interesting debate, one from which the press has not emerged unscathed. Press accountability happens to be a subject of great topical interest, but then it always is. The phrase "The freedom of the press" always evokes great emotions; and quite rightly so. The freedom of the press has guarded our freedoms, and I think that it is not too extreme to say that it has protected democracy. It is a greatly cherished part of our national heritage. But freedom is not licence. Abuse of that freedom jeopardises the very freedom itself.
This subject—as one might expect—is one on which your Lordships hold strong views. As always, the views of your Lordships reflect public opinion, where the debate about press standards and the conduct of the press has intensified considerably in recent months.
That is not surprising. There is genuine and legitimate concern, which we have heard about today, about what is known as the tabloid press and its approach to journalism. That approach appears to concentrate not on the quality of well written and informative articles but, as so many noble Lords have said, on the need to seek out more and more salacious details about the lives of so-called celebrities—whoever happens to have got momentarily caught in the spotlight of publicity. The deliberate intrusion into what should be the private lives of people—and recently we have seen this in the grief of the relatives of the victims of disaster—is a matter of public concern and sometimes of public vexation.
At times, the press appears willingly to print articles which, at best, are a distortion of the truth and, at worst, are even falsehoods. When discovered, it sometimes seems to find it difficult to accept the responsibility to publish corrections. My noble friend Lord Auckland gave us an example of a child who was accused of drinking champagne and thereupon received a visitation from the Temperance Society. I do not know what effect that had on the child, aged two, but it certainly had a remarkable effect on my noble friend, who has never forgotten the exercise. No doubt it has helped him to live in a straight and narrow way ever since.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, threw one's imagination into vivid relief when he said that he was accused of handbagging—I think that is the expression: lashing out at a reporter through a glass panel. As the noble Earl pointed out, he got no apology. All he got was a written piece in the paper of his own version of the circumstances. The noble Earl's description of that incident emphasises the important point that the original divulgence is news and the correction is not news. The original divulgence causes damage. The correction does not undo the damage.
However, whatever practices some papers may adopt, we must be careful not to brand all of the
1308
press with the faults of the few. As so many noble Lords have said, the local, regional and the quality national newspapers are essential to our interests if we are to have a well informed public. They are highly valued, they are varied, and they are usually of a very high standard. I think it would not be unfair to say that the best of British newspapers compare well with any in the rest of the world.
One or two noble Lords referred to the two Bills considered in another place. There was the Right of Reply Bill which reached but did not complete its Report stage last week. The Protection of Privacy Bill is also proceeding in another place. Both Bills were born out of substantial public and parliamentary concern about the excesses of certain elements of the press. Despite that, I am bound to say that the Government have serious reservations about them. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate that both would encroach upon the freedom of the press. That is a heritage that we rightly prize. We must be careful about surrendering it and certainly not without good cause.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will agree. The noble Lord was worried about shackling a free press. He said that he was opposed to legislation and to inaction. I think that that encapsulates what most of us feel; namely, that we do not want legislation. But neither do we want inaction.
We have doubts about whether the provisions in the Bills would work effectively in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said that if the Bills failed, the problem would not necessarily go away. It would simply be a reprieve for the press to put its own house in order. I agree with the noble Lord who, as usual, put his case very well.
The issues raised by the Bills also strike at the very heart of the Press Council, as its annual report makes clear. It has become something of a national sport to attack the Press Council. Everyone knows about the "toothless tiger"—a rather offensive description, I always think. But if the Press Council is an inherently ineffective body—as some seem to suggest—it is not imprudent to ask why it has survived so well over 30 years. The council started on 1st July 1953, following a recommendation made by the first Royal Commission on the Press. The commission considered that some measure was necessary in order to ensure certain standards of journalistic behaviour; but it also believed that the authority to enforce those standards had to come from the profession itself. Two successive Royal Commissions have confirmed that view. They felt that an effective voluntary body was preferable to any form of statutory control. That remains the Government's view.
Each commission also considered it necessary to include lay members in the council in order to increase public confidence in the impartiality of the council. Lay members now make up half of the council's voting membership. But each Royal Commission also pointed out that if self-regulation is to succeed it must be effective. To be effective, any body must change with the times. The newly appointed chairman of the Press Council, Mr. Blom-Cooper, said in his foreword to the recent

1309
report that "times have changed". So they have. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that The Times has changed. That puts a different inflexion on to the concept. If so, that must be a terrible jolt to the establishment. I know that the noble Lord holds his own views about those sorts of newspapers.
Many noble Lords have said that journalists have become intrusive. I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that some sections of the press behave in a way that would be unacceptable with any other body of people, particularly when they come and poke their cameras into people's rooms. I think that the noble Lord is largely correct. Instances of distortion and inaccuracy and, sometimes, of downright disregard for fact have regrettably become far more common. The press world today is highly competitive, not just in financial and commercial terms, but in the race to provide ever more avant garde, titillating, salacious, intrusive and often offensive material, which inevitably presses against the bounds of acceptability.
Standards have suffered even though circulation may not have done. It was good that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that one editor had remarked that what is important is truth. That is not necessarily evident in all newspapers, but it is good that the right reverend Prelate found that comment somewhere. I wish that the sentiment were more evident. The right reverend Prelate said that the tabloids reflect different views of the world. That is perfectly true, but they still influence the world and events. I believe that standards are important and it is important that they should not suffer. We must never forget—and the press must never forget—that the press wields great power and influence. It may say that it does not. It may think that it does not. But it does.
As so many noble Lords have said, intrusive journalism can be deeply distressing. Inaccurate and biased reporting can have damaging consequences which go far beyond the immediate publication of the report. It can affect a person's life and prejudice his standing in the community. When we see abuses of that kind, it is not surprising that they have become a matter for public concern.
I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, thought that it would not be appropriate for the press to be controlled by a group of people who, I believe he said, were lackeys of the Minister.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I said "nominees of Ministers".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I must get the wording right. I do not wish to give the wrong impression. That provided an interesting contrast with the noble Lord's comment that the best way to encourage the elevation of standards was for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to talk to one of the newspaper proprietors. That said a great deal for my right honourable friend and a certain amount about the proprietors. I thought it an interesting intellectual argument.
1310
It is not surprising to find that repeated examples of abuse, albeit by an irresponsible minority, have generated increasing public hostility towards the press. The two Private Member's Bills, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, have been carried forward on just that tide of hostility. But anger, however legitimate, does not make a good basis for legislation. Legislation on this subject is far from straightforward, as the progress of the two Bills has shown.
The first question one must ask is: how would press freedom fare under the heavy hand of statutory control? This Government might well respect press freedom, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, when he asked what would happen if another government of a totally different make-up and hue took a different view. I fear that to seek to control the press through legislation —which, by its nature, suggests a degree of government control—could place us on a very slippery slope. The Government would become the arbiter of acceptability, and that is only one step away from censorship. Once we have censorship, the freedom of the press and the freedom to disseminate thought and opinion have gone out or the window.
We believe that self-regulation of the press is preferable to any form of statutory control. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said that we need a code of practice rather than fines. That may be so. It is a matter for people to consider. Whatever it is, it must be enforceable, and that is up to the press. Any system of self-regulation is only as effective as the degree of co-operation and respect that it receives from those who are parties to the system; otherwise, it simply does not work. The Press Council is aware of that and of the need to respond to the changing climate of public opinion. Its review of its functions and procedures seems to be both thorough and far reaching. Possibly even more important, it appears to have support from the regional and the national press—a degree of support that has not always been evident in those quarters in the past.
Some of the credit for a more enlightened approach by the newspaper industry must go to the sponsors of the two Bills that I have mentioned. They succeeded in raising the level of appreciation by all sections of the press of the degree of public and parliamentary concern and apprehension over their activities. That degree of concern is shared by the Government. It was for that reason that my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Renton, announced in another place last week that the Government have decided that there should be a review of the general issue of privacy and related matters. My noble friend Lord Beloff asked about this. It is a review of privacy and related matters; it is quite separate from Mr. Blom-Cooper's review of the Press Council's rules and functions which was announced some months earlier. The proposals recently suggested by Mr. Blom-Cooper for reform of the law on defamation and privacy will no doubt be taken into account in the review of privacy and related matters announced by my honourable friend last week.
The review will be conducted outside government and will aim to report to the Home Secretary within

1311
a year. Decisions have still to be taken as to who should be invited to chair the review and the precise terms of reference. The views of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on that point were interesting. A formal announcement will be made in due course.
I believe that this is a positive step. It is designed to deal with the problems that understandably have caused public and parliamentary disquiet for some time. Your Lordships will have listened to today's debate with great care, as indeed I have done. I hope that the newspaper industry will also have listened carefully and, if it has not listened, will at least read carefully what has been said. I hope that it will take note of the level of concern expressed about its current activities.
The future of the press is in the hands of the press. It ignores the warnings of public concern at its peril. If, as a result, the press loses its freedom, it will be the loser; but so also will the public. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has introduced an important and timely debate. If it has done none other—and I am sure it will have done much more—than hoist a storm cone for all the press to see, then it will have been of immensely valuable service.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I noted that he used the word "enforceable". Did he mean enforceable or effective?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not certain of the context to which the noble Lord refers?
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it was in the context of the Press Council's judgments. The noble Earl used the word "enforceable". That is an entirely new thought from the Government. I think that he probably meant effective.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to split hairs with the noble Lord. I gather that he thinks this is slightly more than a question of semantics. The important point is that it should be effective.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I welcome greatly the Minister's statement that the Government attach great importance to a self-regulatory Press Council. I welcome also his statement of the Government's reluctance to see any form of statutory intervention from which he would expect to see grave dangers to the freedom of the press. I find that very encouraging.
I am most grateful to Members of the House who have taken part in this wide-ranging debate. It has emphasised the point with which I started; namely, that the press is now on probation. If it does not put its house in order and give to a reconstructed Press Council under the chairmanship of Mr. Blom-Cooper a chance of establishing effective control over standards, the inevitable result will be the disaster of statutory intervention. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Manufacturing Base
5.35 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to call attention to the size of Britain's manufacturing base in the light of the balance of payments situation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the Motion that I propose to your Lordships' House is consideration of the size of the United Kingdom's manufacturing base in relation to the balance of payments. We have heard today that the current account deficit on the balance of payments was reduced from nearly £1.7 billion in February to approximately £1.2 billion in March. This has been the occasion for much rejoicing in certain quarters, particularly in the City.
I think it is rather a sad state of affairs that a deficit of £ 1.2 billion in one month should be a cause for rejoicing. After all, it still indicates that by the end of this year we shall be in deficit to the tune of £15 billion or thereabouts should that sort of level be maintained, bearing in mind what happened in the previous two months. The rejoicing, of course, comes from relief that the situation was not worse, and we are all delighted that it was not. But what our aim clearly must be is to discover what means are at the disposal of the nation progressively to close that enormous gap. Before I try to indicate what I believe should be done for that purpose, I should like to go back a little in time.
On 10th November 1983 I put down an Unstarred Question in this House, the purpose of which was to ask Her Majesty's Government what they were doing to stimulate non-oil visible exports. I am delighted to see that on the list of speakers in today's debate there are two noble Lords who participated in that debate; namely, the noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Bruce of Donington. The reason for asking that Question at that time was that an historic point had been reached in the economic history of Britain. Leaving aside the war years, for the first time we had run into deficit on our manufacturing trade account.
In 1982 we had shown a surplus of £2 billion; in 1983 we showed a deficit of the same amount, approximately £2 billion. I thought that was a serious development and that attention should be drawn to it. At that time we were showing a quite substantial surplus overall, and it was largely due to the oil. The question then asked was: what happens when the oil revenues diminish? If we are now moving into a deficiency on our manufacturing trade account, what will be the consequence of that trend?
During the course of that debate, I proposed that a Select Committee should be set up to look into that important issue. I am glad to say that that was agreed. In due course a Select Committee was formed under the illustrious chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who will be speaking later in this debate, and the issue was looked into very much more carefully. The point that was raised in my initial contribution to the subject was elaborated much further by the Select Committee. The important point that I want to emphasise is that, having

1313
looked at the problems that we were likely to encounter as a country when the benefits of the oil revenues for whatever reason started to diminish and if our manufacturing trade account did not show some improvement, we put those points to the Treasury and asked what it thought the solution would be.
As noble Lords who took part in the debate on the Select Committee's report will recall, the Treasury's answer was that there would be an automatic adjustment or automaticity. This apparently would arise for the reason that when the oil revenues diminished, sterling, which was then regarded as a petrocurrency, would equally diminish. That would give a stimulus to manufacturing exports. According to the Treasury's thesis, that is what was meant to happen. I may say that nobody on our committee, which was representative of all parties in this House, accepted that thesis. We felt that it was quite fallacious and that that situation was not likely to happen in the event.
In that report, we included certain forecasts of what the deficit and the balance of payments might be, should the existing trends continue. For 1989, we mentioned a deficit on current account of £10 billion. The only mistake that we made in the event was that it was unfortunately on the light side. We would have been more correct had we made it £15 billion, which it is likely to be. Therefore the question is this. Why has the theory propounded by the Treasury in 1985 not worked out in practice? I should like to hazard the suggestion that it is because it was far too simplistic. One cannot get things to work on the basis of simple theories. It was quite obvious then, as it is even more obvious now, that unless we have a very strong manufacturing industrial base we shall not be able to balance our trade and our payments with the rest of the world. In order to achieve that, we have to build up that base.
I well remember in the arguments that we have had over the issue in this House over the years that we were repeatedly told from the Government Benches that even if manufacturing was diminishing, services would take its place. The Government seemed quite resigned to the fact in those days that we would diminish as a manufacturing country but that we would fill the gap with our services—and in any case there was this automatic adjustment that would occur.
Let us consider what has happened to our manufacturing capacity in Great Britain. We had the crisis from which the whole world suffered as a result of the oil price increase in 1979. We had the massive recession in 1980 to 1982 when there was an enormous reduction in our industrial and manufacturing capacity. Subsequent to that there has been a recovery, and in many sectors there has been a remarkable improvement in productivity, to which I have no doubt the noble Lord will refer when he speaks, which is perfectly fair since there has been improvement. The problem that we have as a country is that our recovery and the present size of our manufacturing industry do not compare in relative terms with those of our competitors. It was only in 1988 that we achieved a recovery in terms
1314
of manufacturing capacity to the level of 1974, whereas the Germans, the French, the Americans, the Japanese and others had long surpassed that level.
The test of such recovery is that when demand has increased, as it has in the last year or year and a half, we have been unable to meet it. We have had to draw in manufactured goods from other countries not very far afield. A large part of them have come from Germany—a country which is in Western Europe, which is in the same situation as ourselves and which has also gone through the same tribulations. It has not had the benefit of the oil in the North Sea, yet it has managed to build up this surplus of industrial capacity to meet our needs. This suggests therefore that there is something wrong with our policies.
Before we consider what policies we should be adopting to put this right, let us consider what size our manufacturing industry should be. It is better to know at what one is aiming if one is trying to devise a policy to achieve something rather than simply talking in vague terms. The value of our manufacturing output in 1988 was £95 billion or thereabouts. The deficit on our manufacturing trade account in 1988 was £14 billion or thereabouts. It follows from the combination of those two simple figures that, if we were able to increase our manufacturing capacity on a competitive basis to the tune of about 15 per cent. we would be able to close the gap either by meeting more of the home demand, or exporting more. I suggest that it seems a very desirable objective. The question is whether present policies will lead to it. We must view that with a question mark.
The CBI published in the newpapers this morning its latest quarterly survey. It shows that the Government's policy of using high interest rates as a panacea for solving the country's economic problems is beginning to bite on industrial and manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, the consequential impact of high interest rates on the value of sterling is beginning to reflect on export prospects. Therefore this weapon of high interest rates that the Government have decided is a way to solve all problems of inflation, of stimulating manufacturing, and of improving exports is clearly not working. If one relies on such a weapon, another simplistic approach, it cannot solve all problems at one go. In practice, high interest rates at present have not reduced inflation. They have increased it because they have put up a number of essential charges. They have not added to the competitiveness of British industry because they have added to its costs. They have not added to the ability of British industry to compete abroad because they have made the goods of British industry more expensive. If we agree with my main thesis that we need to increase the competitive capacity of manufacturing industry by15 per cent. to close the trade gap, this weapon does not appear to be the way to do it.
What is the way to close the gap? I am not among those—I do not think that there are many in this House—who believe that government can solve all problems. For a start, government cannot manufacture anything, and nor do we want them to do so.

1315
However, the important role of government is to set the framework. The framework that they set is of immense importance in relation to the reactions of those who have to operate within the economy.
I should like to suggest ways in which the objective of increasing manufacturing capacity may be achieved. First, I must refer to the question that a number of noble Lords have asked of government ever since the domestic credit crisis arose. Why use the bludgeon of high interest rates to solve the problem when there are other ways of doing so? I am among the millions in this country who receive continued proposals from financial institutions on ways in which I can have an extra holiday or buy a number of domestic appliances and so on by going to them for credit. There has been no diminution on the sale of credit even though the credit expansion that we have encountered in this country over the past year or year-and-a-half has been at the root of our problem.
One is bound to ask the question: why do the Government not think of tackling the situation in another way? Why at the very least does not the Chancellor, or the Governor of the Bank, talk to the chairmen of the main financial institutions and tell them to stop advertising and promoting credit? That would be a start.
Secondly, why can we not have the system so well and successfully tried in the past of getting the banks to hold larger deposits, so that their capability of creating more credit was thereby restricted? If domestic credit is the problem, I feel that it should be directly looked at. If that were tackled, there would then be the possibility of reducing interest rates, which in turn would work through to the benefit of industry. The CBI is continually asking for that. In turn this would diminish the value of the currency, and at an appropriate stage I believe we should then try to fix the currency in relation to the currencies of our main competitors in Western Europe by joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
Clearly we must do something like that in our approach to 1992. We must seek to reduce the burdens on industry. The Director General of the CBI spoke only the other day about all the burdens which are now being imposed on industry: increasing electricity charges, which we debated in this House yesterday; increased water charges; the impact of the poll tax on industry. There are a mass of extra charges being imposed on industry at the very time when we should be seeking to expand it. So these should be looked at.
Another major impediment to industry is created by our faltering infrastructure, particularly transport. Your Lordships probably will all have received and read what the CBI said about the extra costs of congestion. Firms such as Marks and Spencer, Sainsburys—all the big firms—have indicated what their extra costs are as a result of congestion and because goods cannot be moved around. That should be an absolute priority. The Government keep saying how much more is being spent, but the real issue is: how much more do we need to spend on it? What is the need? How are we
1316
to get the railways, the roads and the airways working in a less congested way so that industry can expand?
There are then the two big issues which our Continental friends seem to have tacked much more vigorously than we have: namely, training and research. In our approach to training for industry, although big strides have been made recently, we are still falling behind the Germans and the French. In research, the stimulus for adequate research and preparing for the goods of tomorrow and creating the innovation that is so badly needed is lacking.
In conclusion, I should like to suggest that if we agree that one of our main economic objectives should be to increase the size of our competitive manufacturing capacity, we must devise policies to that end. I do not believe that the policies at present being applied will lead to that objective, which would be a sad state of affairs. I believe that we in this country have all the capabilities and skills and all the resources needed to achieve that desirable result. What we now need is the right framework and strategies to be able to go ahead on that basis. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, we all wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this Motion in a characteristically well argued, lucid and very persuasive way. My noble friends on the Front Bench would be very wise to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has great experience in industry in running one of our great national enterprises. In running that enterprise he learnt about British manufacturers, who in those days supplied practically everything he needed in the way of plant. Eveything he says is worth listening to. His experience is unrivalled, and we on the Select Committee found his charming way of putting it very telling indeed. I thank him, and I hope that my noble friend will consider very carefully what he said. I hope that my noble friend will also listen a little to what I have to say, which is very much along the same lines. I have a point of view to put and I know my noble friend will forgive me if he does not agree with all of it.
The size of our manufacturing base is, in my opinion, the principal key to the balance of payments. The size of the base dictates the output of manufacturing, and if we do not make in Britain at least the quantity of manufactured goods that the British people want to buy there must be a deficit on the balance of trade in manufactures and there must consequentially be a deficit on the current account in the balance of payments.
Exports and imports are very important in that they affect the goods made here or bought here, but they do not affect the proposition that I have put. We know that last year the deficit on the manufactured balance of trade was £14.4 billion and in the current account it was £14.7 billion. Those two figures are very close together, and that closeness has been repeated in the figures we have seen today for the first quarter of 1989: a deficit on the manufactured account of £4.27 billion and a deficit on the current account of balance of payments of £4.48 billion. The

1317
old idea that invisible services could make up the gap surely has gone. What the invisible surplus can and does do magnificently is to make up for the deficit in other parts of the balance of payments account. It just does that, or is slightly short.
Your Lordships were warned in 1985 by your Select Committee of the importance of the manufacturing trade deficit to our economy. You were warned that the manufacturing deficit would grow, which indeed it did—from £3 billion, when we finished our inquiry, to just under £15 billion last year. As the noble Lord has said, there have been improvements since we reported. The most important improvements are in the efficiency of management and in the productivity of our manufacturing industry generally. But those improvements have not led in the last three-and-a-half years to a sufficient increase in output—there has been some—that would increase our share of world trade and our share in our own home market, which governs the penetration of imports. I hope the Government will tell us why their undoubted success in stimulating efficiency and productivity has not reaped the results that they must have expected.
Demand may have been abnormally high in 1988. We are told of the inflation, but in my opinion it is not that additional demand or that inflation which have caused the growing deficit. The reason for that deficit is the failure of manufacturing output in Britain to keep up with demand for manufactured goods in Britain. The market is there for British-made goods, but the British goods are not there and so the gap is filled by imports.
I gave one simple set of figures in November when we debated the economic situation generally. Between 1973 and the first quarter of 1988 demand for manufactured goods in Britain increased by 25 per cent. But our output of manufactured goods did not increase at all. It was the same at the end of that period as at the beginning, although it was down during the middle. It was not until the second quarter of 1988 that manufacturing output in Britain grew above the level of output in 1973, when, according to my figures, it was at its peak. Since the first quarter of 1988 demand for manufactured goods has grown even faster than output, which has grown by 6 per cent. Hence the rising deficit in the balance of trade. The gap has widened.
Current policy aimed at curing inflation seeks to reduce the rate of increase in demand by several percentage points. But if that reduction is achieved —and I hope that it will be—it will not eliminate the deficit. The elimination can come about only by a substantial increase in output. The noble Lord says that it must be an increase of about 15 per cent. but I calculate it to be between 15 and 20 per cent. It must be above the normal increases to deal with the annual increase in the demand for manufactured goods which we expect to take place in our society. That is a large target to set and a large increase to achieve.
Today I took comfort in the CBI report which I read in the Financial Times. It stated that consumer demand is responding to the Chancellor's policies.
1318
Like all noble Lords in the House, I wish to see inflation squeezed out. However, I take no comfort from the other part of that report, which stated that the supply side of the economy is also slowing. If the Government would help industry to be more competitive so that it can take up a larger share of the home market there would be no need for that to happen.
I must draw to the attention of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde the share in the home market. When on 10th April he replied to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who asked what the Government intended to do about the matter, he said:
"it is not so much for governments but for industries to galvanise themselves to improve their export situation".— [Official Report, 10/4/89; col 4.]
They need not merely to improve their export situation but also to improve their capability of taking up a proper share of the home market. Imports must be reduced and, until they are, the great deficit will continue.
What can the Government do? I believe that the expression they use for the task is "the right climate" and I agree with that. They must try to find and create the right climate for the extension of British manufacturing industry by between 15 and 20 per cent. over the next few years in a fully competitive world. When one looks at what they are doing one must avoid being facetious in wondering whether they are trying to create a climate which will obstruct that.
They encourage productivity and take the credit for that, quite rightly. But since 1986 they have so arranged the exchange rate that its increases have cancelled out the splendid productivity gains of the past two years. I find that to be extraordinary. In 1986, when we were beginning to do quite well, the exchange rate was approximately 10 per cent. more favourable than now. They exhort investment and add to the cost of the investment by sharp increases in the interest rate. I cannot believe that they intend to cause the damage which such things can cause, not so much to people who are already there and know how to weather the storms but to people upon whom we rely for investing and starting new products and expanding the lines of existing products.
There is one other point to which the Government must address themselves. They are worried, as are many of us, about inflationary pay settlements which have taken place in the economy but not in manufacturing industry. Over the past two years unit labour costs in manufacturing industry have risen by between 1 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. per year. Yet, in trying to squeeze those inflationary pay settlements out of other sectors of the economy, the Government use measures which harm manufacturing industry far more than any other sector. During the past two years the increase in unit labour costs in the rest of the economy has been four or five times that within manufacturing industry. I am aware of the importance of pay settlements, but one can trust competitive manufacturing industry, which must compete in the import as well as the export market, to restrain its pay settlements. Manufacturing industry has done its best but it is

1319
competing for labour in a market which has, or appears to have, no such restraints upon it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the CBI's analysis of the burdens upon manufacturing industry. I should like to remind my noble friend of what happened in 1988. As compared with 1987, increases in manufacturing industrial costs were as follows: local authority rates—plus 10 per cent; electricity prices—plus 9 per cent.; water charges—plus 10 per cent.; unit labour costs—within the control of manufacturing industry—plus 1 per cent.; unit labour costs where the goods were bought from other manufacturers—plus 4.5 per cent.
The Government are trying to tackle the rates. They are trying to tackle electricity and water charges by privatisation and I hope that in doing so they will be successful in reducing the costs to industry. But what about tackling some of the matters in their own field? We have been led to believe that the Government have reduced the rate of corporation tax. There has been no reduction when compared with the previous rate for many people with high capital allowances. But the important point is that in Britain corporation taxes as a percentage of GDP are much higher than in competitor countries. In the United States they are 2 per cent.; in Western Germany they are 2.2 per cent.; in France they are 2.2 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom they are 3.9 per cent. If the Government are trying to help manufacturing industry to be more competitive why can they not turn their attention to that matter? Taxation impinges upon savings or profits which must be reinvested for training, research and development and so forth.
Since 1986 the effective sterling exchange rate has risen by approximately 9 per cent. During 1986 and 1987, when it was at its lowest, inflation was also at its lowest and not at its highest as we are led to believe. Interest rates were then kept down. Why is there the belief that the exchange rate must be kept up in order to keep inflation down? If it is because there are some artificial restraints on inflation then the sooner we get away from that the better. One cannot cure inflation artificially; it must be squeezed out properly.
There are many other things which the Government can do apart from the exchange rate. I was amazed when this morning I heard on the "Today" programme that the Government had turned down everything recommended by a Select Committee in the other place in connection with information technology. I regret that very much. I beseech my noble friends to listen a little to what is said by other people who are trying to help. Our Select Committee had the extraordinary experience of being rubbished. I was sad to learn—although perhaps also a little comforted—that Select Committees in another place suffer the same fate. I hope only that, as a result, the committee's report turns into a best seller as ours did.
In conclusion, I turn to my noble friend and say that he and the Government believe in market forces. The big market force in Britain is that demand for manufactured goods has risen just as much as demand for services. It is a myth to say that the
1320
British purchaser has turned to services in a big way. Why have the Government let the output side of the economy get out of balance? Market forces have gone wrong. What can the Government do to put them right? I do not believe that they can continue to stand off. Many of us, their close friends, believe that to have a stand-off attitude in this matter is near to madness. We are reminded of the old adage that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. I do not wish to destroy them: I beseech the Government to give up this particular madness in regard to manufacturing industry.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the economic future of Britain is being undermined by the present performance of our manufacturing industry. As a trading nation, we must expand its capacity and increase the output of goods which we sell abroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, today's trade figures are a matter for regret and not for rejoicing. His debate today is especially timely for that reason. I should like to congratulate him for introducing it.
In particular, we must produce goods which will sell in Europe. Our economic future now lies largely in Europe; it is in Europe that the competitive failure of our manufacturing industry is most persistent and severe. It is on Europe that I should like to focus most of my remarks.
Fifteen years ago, at the time of our accession to the European Community, just over a third of our trade was with the countries which currently make up the European Community. Today more than half our trade is with the EC, an expansion that is as welcome as it is inevitable. However, any welcome must be tempered by the sobering fact that over the past 10 years the balance between exports and imports has swung so heavily towards imports.
In 1980 our trade with Europe in manufactured goods was roughly in balance. Today our manufactured trade with our European partners is in deficit by over £14 billion. Perhaps I may elaborate on that appalling figure. Although it is true that in 1980 we had deficits with the three largest Community countries, they were very small by today's standards. In 1980 our manufactured deficit with West Germany was £550 million; in 1988 it was a staggering £8 billion. In 1980 our deficit with France was £400 million and with Italy just £200 million. Today our deficit with France has more than doubled to £1 billion; with Italy it has grown quite disastrously—eight times over—to £1.7 billion. Worst of all, a £400 million surplus with the Netherlands has been transformed into a £2.7 billion deficit. Indeed, the only Community countries with which Britain regularly achieves a manufactured trade surplus are Greece and the Republic of Ireland.
It is with the Community that we are to form an integrated single market by the end of 1992, a single market in which the bracing wind of competition will blow yet more strongly. I am afraid to say that for the ill prepared, it will be a bitterly cold wind. The completion of the internal market should not be a threat; it should be an exciting opportunity. However, opportunities have to be taken. And in

1321
this case opportunities have to be prepared for. The tragedy is that we are not taking our opportunities. We are not preparing our manufacturing industry for the challenges which lie ahead. We are not preparing by investing in the new technologies which will determine competitive strength in the 1990s.
The level of investment in manufacturing industry is even lower now than it was in 1979. That really is a disgrace. When it is so evident that their current policies have failed to increase the volume of investment, what changes are the Government going to make to encourage a higher level? Perhaps the noble Lord speaking for the Government could enlighten us; perhaps he could also say what the Government intend to do about investment in infrastructure to help industry.
We are not preparing by training a skilled labour force. Our investment in training amounts to less than one-tenth of West Germany's expenditure. And a recent report by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research has demonstrated that our training in the very important area of advanced engineering is markedly inferior to French schemes. As many Members of your Lordships' House pointed out in a debate only a week or so ago on higher education, we are not preparing by investing in the universities and polytechnics to produce the highly skilled people we need as well as the new ideas.
We are not preparing by investing in research and development. Again, perhaps the Minister could throw some light on the terribly slow progress made by the LINK scheme. In 1986 the Prime Minister announced that scheme saying that she attached great importance to the work that it would do. She went on to say that the Government would spend £210 million over the next five years on research programmes which would bring together industry and publicly-funded scientists on a collaborative basis.
As at 4th April 1989, the Government had authorised only £60 million worth of funding for that scheme. So, after two and a half years, just over one-quarter of the money has been allocated and much of it has not yet been spent. Scientists in universities and research institutes are extremely disappointed as, no doubt, are people in industry. Our scientists want to help. They want to work in industry on research and development.
What has happened looks like the dragging of feet rather than the attachment to the scheme of great importance, to use the Prime Minister's words. The sad fact is that no importance is attached to it. This country's expenditure on commercially viable research and development as a proportion of national income is the lowest among the advanced industrial countries of Europe.
Most important, we are not preparing by creating an environment in which industry rejects short-term cost cutting in favour of long-term competition in research and in product and process development. Instead of creating a framework in which long run development and competition can thrive, I am afraid that the Government have been the principal agents of short-termism. Deregulating finance both at home
1322
and abroad has created uncertainty on the foreign exchanges and has enhanced short-term financial pressures through the stock market. By declaring that the only criterion for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be competition in the narrowest sense, the Government have encouraged conglomerate mergers arid predatory takeovers including the takeover of British high-tech companies by European companies. Is that really what we want to see?
By privatising electricity and water, as has already been mentioned, with consequent increased costs for manufacturing, the Government have put their really ridiculous dogma about privatising all and everything first and the improved performance of British industry and its competitiveness second. By abandoning all tools of economic policy save interest rates, the Government have squeezed British industry in a vice between the highest interest rates in any major industrial country and a high exchange rate. How can our industries be expected to compete when in one year the pound has risen by 7 per cent. against the deutschemark and our interest rates are more than double German interest rates?
Perhaps one of the pettiest changes of all concerns the announcement this year by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of so-called improvements in export promotion. In a classic example of bureaucracy-speak we were told that,
"the DTI intends to widen the scope of services where charges are applied".
That means in plain English that exporters will have to pay more for vital advice and information on overseas markets. According to the Daily Telegraph they will have to pay between £200 and £300 for each inquiry. My own experience, going back to the Central Policy Review Staffs report and work on overseas representation was that this kind of advice is vital for companies if they want to make progress in exporting. Perhaps the Minister can explain why industry, which may be trying to develop overseas markets and which we want to support and encourage, should be discouraged in this manner by the introduction of a petty system of charging. Surely that will not help to increase our competitiveness.
All these measures to which I have referred are the acts of a Government failing to prepare for the challenges of 1992. It is vital that the Government now abandon their dogmatic refusual to take any responsibility for Britain's industrial future and adopt an active supply-side strategy to assist in building our industrial strength.
The Government are, quite rightly, happy to welcome the Japanese investment now being made in Britain to exploit the opportunities of the European market. When will the Government commit themselves to the sort of industrial policies which created that Japanese industrial strength? There must be a strategy of concerted investment in education, training, research and development, and in the techniques and processes of the 1990s. There must be a long-term strategy for the recovery of industrial competitiveness. That means recapturing markets at home and abroad and creating new markets for British goods. As the noble Lord, Lord

1323
Ezra, said, that cannot be done by the Government alone; but, as current failures show only too clearly, it cannot be done without the Government creating what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, called the right climate. The failure to prepare our industry for the 1990s is, in itself, serious enough.
However, there is another factor which should be taken into account. If British industry cannot compete in the single European market, if persistent deficits weigh down our economy and condemn us to slow growth and to economic backwardness, then disillusionment with Europe will be one of the results. Instead of the new Europe holding out an exciting challenge in the future, the new Europe will be seen simply as a delusion and as a failure. That would be a great tragedy, not only for this country but for the whole of Europe. It must not happen. Instead, we must start now, without wasting any more time, to build the manufacturing strength which will allow us to compete on something like equal terms so that competition within Europe becomes a constructive stimulus and not a destructive threat.
6.23 p.m.
: My Lords, the debate this afternoon creates a definite atmosphere of déjà vu. There have been many times over the past few decades when we saw Britain go round this circle of expanded consumerism leading to the sucking in of imports, balance of payments problems, pressure on the pound, a run against the pound, interest rates rising, and recession setting in. We have seen that circle again and again. In fact, it is not so much a circle as a downward spiral, down which our country has travelled, finishing up at each turn lower down and behind our competitors.
We have no option but to face our need to compete. About 20 per cent. of everything we consume in this country is imported and we cannot avoid the necessity to pay for it, either by increasing productivity and total production or by the falling value of our currency—and the latter is the way that we have tended to adopt several times over.
The Government have recently been proud to announce increasing production over the past seven to eight years and have many times boasted of several per cent. a year increases. However, they take 1981 as the base year. Unfortunately, the Government must face the fact that they came into power in 1979 and for the first two or three years there was a dramatic crash in British industry. Looking at the Government's performance over the whole period there has been a return to just above the 1979 level of production; but what a dramatic deterioration in the balance.
In 1979 our manufactured exports represented 108 per cent. of the value of our manufactured imports. Current production is just above that level but it now represents only 77 per cent. of manufactured imports. We face a catastrophic problem. In an open market, expansion without a corresponding increase in efficiency leads to the most dreadful problems. While I accept what my noble friend Lord Ezra said about the need for a considerable increase
1324
in production, that must be accompanied by a dramatic increase in productivity.
With our expanding market why is it that private capital has not expanded the investment in British industry? The answer is that capital is free to travel, and if it is free to travel I am sorry to have to say that sheer patriotism will not carry too much weight. If the Government fail, as they have failed, to set the concomitant conditions for industry, of course investment will go to Germany, France and Italy—the golden triangle has tremendous magnetism. The tunnel, when opened, will carry goods both ways, not just from Britain to Europe.
We have repeatedly read in the financial press of the dramatic deterioration in the United States balance of payments. The prognisis is trouble for the United States because no advanced country has been able to sustain a 3 per cent. deficit in its GDP for more than two or three years. The United States is now carrying a 3 per cent. deficit. Britain is carrying a deficit of nearly 4 per cent. Our position is therefore markedly worse than that of the United States and we must pay some immediate attention to that. There is a terrible threat to the pound. I very much fear that we are far from being able to take advantage of 1992-93. We shall find an even worse climate unless we pull up our socks very quickly.
I should like to speak about the chemical industry, in which I have worked for all of my working life. I declare an interest because I am still active in a chemical business. My personal experience has been in selling mainly to the countries of Eastern Europe where there is very fierce and open competition with sources from all parts of the world. The chemical industry has been one of the star performers of British industry, and we are very proud of it. We have steadily increased our exports. But when one is at the sharp end doing the selling one can sense the competition before it shows up in the statistics.
In recent years, time and again I have seen markets that we have had for many years and assumed would always be ours and in our pockets, suddenly facing competition. For example, a buyer may say, "We have had an offer of 12.5 per cent. below yours". I have returned and said to the British suppliers, "We have competition". All too often the response has been, "Ah, you are just saying that. That market has been ours for years". A month of two later the company is wondering why on earth the orders have not materialised. Then comes horror of horrors, because South Korea, Bulgaria, Hungary and other places that no one had ever dreamed of as competitors are in serious competition with British industry and with the chemical industry which is one of our stars.
I noted with interest that between 1981 and 1989 we succeeded in increasing British chemical exports by 53 per cent., and that is not bad at all. We all know each other in the chemical business. It occurred to me that some of my friends who are in the business of selling into Britain seemed to be making a somewhat easier living than I. I am still slightly shocked to find that in the same period between 1981 and 1989 when our exports had increased by 53 per cent., imports into the United Kingdom had increased by exactly 100 per cent. Even in this star

1325
industry our competitive edge is slipping and we had better watch it. In 1981 we had a net favourable balance in the chemical trade of £2 billion. In 1988 it was still £2 billion but the trade had almost trebled and the value of the pound was less. That is more evidence that the edge is slipping and that we had better watch it.
The most profitable part of our international chemical trade is pharmaceuticals. There have been many triumphs of British technology in pharmaceuticals, but here the Government have shot themselves in the foot several times despite pleas from the industry. Their enthusiasm for slashing the cost of the National Health Service has resulted in spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. The restriction of the list for National Health Service prescriptions was a severe blow to the British pharmaceutical industry.
For example, imagine being concerned in selling a new pharmaceutical on which tens of millions of pounds has been spent in development. One goes to a foreign client and explains that the little extra they shall have to pay is well justified because of the low side effects, the greater ease of ministration and other reasons why technically this product is better. What does one reply when the customer asks, "If it is so good why have your own Government cut it from their list?" It is impossible to reply. One can hardly say, "Because they are a load of idiots", even if one thinks it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what on earth do Swiss or American drug companies do? They do not have a National Health Service on which to try out their products.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, a healthy and vigorous home base is absolutely essential to any industry on which to base its exports. You hit your home base and you are asking for trouble. The companies have made representations to the Government time and time again. It is strange, because they are such friends of the Conservative Party and they make such large subscriptions to it. It is very odd that they get so little attention.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I refer also to the cuts in the Medical Research Council budget and the slashing of the long-term developments which provide the seedcorn for the future. There is also the government resistance to the constant pleas from the pharmaceutical industry to extend the validity of patents. These days the cost of developing new pharmaceuticals is enormous. The period needed for their development increases and that means that the effective earning period of the patents is reduced. Yet the Government will not listen to the pleas of the industry. Therefore time and again in the pharmaceutical industry the Government have not been on the side of British exporters.
What are the cures for these problems? The macro-measures necessary have already been mentioned. There is need for a dramatic increase in spending on education. I read recently that in British
1326
industry one in three of shopfloor workers have a technical qualification whereas in Germany four out of five have such a qualification. Of course capital will tend to go to Germany where there is more skill. The workers are not any better there; it is simply that they are trained better. There should be more spending on education and on the infrastructure.
I put in a special plea for the Government to show more imagination in long-term research. Private industry pours money into research but it is always concerned with short-term profits and what is likely to bring it profits in the next three to five years. Private industry is not really interested in the further horizons of 10, 20 or 30 years. Yet it is imperative for the Government to have these longer horizons in view. It has appalled me that the Government have thrown away support for the HOTOL project, for example, and shown such little enthusiasm for the European Space Agency. Apart from pharmaceuticals, the other star performer in British exports has been the aero engine and aero space industry. If we do not put adequate research into HOTOL, the aerospace industry and the European Space Agency, we shall lose the edge in these spheres as well. HOTOL, the European Space Agency and the Medical Research Council are the bodies demanding greater government sympathy.
A failure to cope with our problems means that Britain has been eating the seedcorn which should be building our future. Seventy-eight billion pounds of oil revenues has been frittered away and wasted. If the Government do not pull up their socks, history will pass a very sour verdict on them.
6.38 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we certainly should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate on a very important and topical issue. It is a serious situation and I shall make some rather critical comments. So perhaps 1 may say right at the beginning that whatever I say in no way reduces my admiration for the achievements of Her Majesty's Government over the past 10 years. In particular, at home they have rekindled the spirit of enterprise, controlled trade union power and helped industry to improve productivity. Until recently we could have added to that list the successful control of inflation, but clearly a few problems have occurred recently in that area.
That is serious because we all agree that inflation must be kept certainly below 5 per cent. and, if possible, not above 3 per cent. Even at that low level it means that prices double every 25 years. It is a very serious issue indeed. There is another on which I wish to concentrate my remarks; that is the current account deficit on manufactured products to which other noble Lords have already referred; namely, the non-oil visible trade deficit. That is very relevant to inflation. I am referring to the figures for the non-oil visible trade. In the first quarter of 1989 the deficit was over £6 billion, whichs an annual rate of over £20 billion on non-oil visible trade. It is true that there are some very small signs of improvement. For instance, the increase in exports in the first quarter of this year is slightly greater than the increase in imports compared to the last quarter

1327
of last year. But the reverse trend is true if one compares the figures of a year ago. The terms of trade have also shown a very slight improvement. In spite of those tiny improvements, deficits of the magnitude to which I have referred on the balance of trade in manufactured goods are totally unsustainable in the long term and they are just as unacceptable as an 8 per cent. inflation rate or any other percentage of inflation above 3 or 4 per cent. Those deficits on visible non-oil trade are major obstacles to lasting prosperity.
They are caused by the relative uncompetitiveness of too many British products and companies and by the contraction of our manufacturing base, which affects too many products. British industry today is incapable of meeting home demand and exploiting the many export opportunities. This results from inadequate resources, both people and money, being devoted to developing new and improved competitive products. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, has already referred to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. He has pointed out how successful they have been because they have spent large sums of money on research and development. Other examples are Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace. They have been very successful. Why is Toyota able to make a huge investment in this country? It has the same workforce as other companies have available to them. It is able to do so because it has spent vast sums on new product development in the world's competitive markets.
The lesson is quite clear. We need more companies like our most successful companies which spend adequately on research, and especially on the development of new products for competitive markets. Because we have not spent enough in that way, home demand far exceeds available supply. That creates inflationary pressures of increased prices, and imports are sucked in. Unfortunately, for advice on such problems as these, the Government seem to rely almost exclusively on those who are unversed in manufacturing and have negligible experience of the design and development of new products. One needs only to look around at the otherwise admirable members of the Government both in the Cabinet and outside. There are few with any experience of this difficult and complex process of market research, design, development and manufacture.
Those of us who have been involved in that for most of their lives know how difficult it is to understand the problems and to take the right decisions of balancing risk with enterprise to keep on the right side of that fine line away from disaster. The Government see the imbalance between money supply and product availability as purely a money problem, to be corrected by adjustments to monetary and fiscal policy. That leads to higher interest rates, just as high, as the Chancellor has often said, as are required to damp down an overheated economy and maintain a strong pound in interests of controlling inflation.
In the short term I have no quarrel whatever with those policies. Both are needed. But in the longer
1328
term those actions alone will prove and are proving disastrous. Certainly tight monetary policy will reduce home demand and imports, but the strong pound also makes it more difficult to export, so exports will fall too. Simple arithmetic makes it clear that the deficit on our overseas non-oil visible trade will also fall. However, that is no comfort. High interest rates also discourage investment of all kinds—in capital plant, but perhaps most important of all, investment in new product design and development, which is a much more risky and difficult task. The manufacturing base is further eroded via the smaller home demand, the export difficulty and the lack of investment, while the monetary medicine does its job.
When the time comes—in a few months or in a year or so—and that medicine has worked, inflation is reduced and the economy is cooler, there will be another attempt at expansion. That will create worse problems because by that time the manufacturing base will have shrunk further. The whole dreary money-led cycle will be repeated. I am afraid that it will continue in that way just as long as the Government look at only one factor and at only one side of the inflation equation—the money supply, important though it is.
I shall try to illustrate the point that I am trying to make with an example from those delightful hill farms in the vicinity of the home of my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to reply. Let us suppose that a sheep farm has too many sheep per acre. They become diseased due to lack of nourishment from the available grass. There are two ways out. One can, by some external edict, require that the price of sheep goes up so that the demand for them will fall and the farm will carry fewer sheep. They will be healthy sheep because there is enough grass for them. The alternative is to be a better farmer, put some fertiliser on the ground and increase the supply of grass. One can then carry more healthy sheep, and the economy of the farm is healthy too. So it is with our economy. We need to look at both sides of the inflation equation. So long as we ignore that other vital factor of product supply, and the availability of goods for the money circulating to buy is left to market forces, the problems will continue.
The other day I read with great interest some words of the Chancellor in a lecture that he gave in September last year to the Institute of Economic Affairs. He was referring to the current account deficit. He said:
"That deficit is entirely the result of private individuals and businesses making choices about their own financial affairs".
How true that is; but how true it is also that too many decisions are being made that are wrong. Perhaps they are in the short-term interests of those individuals and organisations, but they are wrong in the long-term for the wealth creation interests of the national economy. It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of these problems. It is not good enough to rely solely on the dogma of non-interference with market forces. Those are not sensible, logical or consistent policies. The whole framework of the monopolies and mergers legislation, of the consumer protection legislation and of the Financial Services Act is an example of

1329
the way in which the Government interfere in the national interest with free market forces.
My plea is not for detailed interference by government in industry. That would be quite wrong. We have tried it before and it does not work. My plea is simply for acceptance by the Government, unequivocally expressed in word and deed, of the central importance of a strong and growing manufacturing industry and a strong manufacturing base. That strength and that growth must be measured by value and volume of output, not by the numbers of people employed in manufacturing industry. Those numbers will steadily reduce as productivity increases through the use of advanced technology.
Today the Prime Minister is showing dramatically her acceptance of the importance of protecting the environment. The lady is indeed for turning, and rightly so, when she is convinced of the need. No less important, perhaps more important, is the need to convince the Prime Minister, my noble friend the Secretary of State and all his colleagues, including my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to reply, of the vital, central role of manufacturing industry. Until that acceptance is achieved it is no use repeating suggestions about what actually needs to be done by the Government in support of industry—that, of course, is where the real responsibility lies—because that advice will continue to fall on deaf ears.
The sad fact is, as I have already suggested, that far too few of the Cabinet understand in depth the real issues at stake. There is all too little understanding there; all too little first-hand experience of the complex processes which I have mentioned. However, our champion for manufacturing industry should be my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and, indeed, the other Ministers with him. Alas, my noble friend the Secretary of State does not seem to accept the importance of manufacturing industry. He seems to believe that £1 million made in the financial futures market is as valuable to the nation as £1 million made from the manufacture and the selling of washing machines, machine tools or diesel engines. I am sure that he is as sincere in his views as I hope he believes I am in mine—as indeed are my friends. But the fact of the matter is that my noble friend and far too many of his colleagues and advisers are frankly wrong.
Unfortunately, this is not a short-term issue and therefore it is that much more intractable because the political time-scale tends to be short. In spite of current problems we in our generation will not suffer much from the mistakes which are being made; but our children and grandchildren will. Also unfortunate is the fact that the problems are made much more difficult to solve by the almost total lack of influential people in the Government to offer constructive and informed criticism of current policies and to champion the cause of manufacturing industry. And of course there is no credible alternative government either. Therefore all we can do is to take advantage of debates, such as this one which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, initiated, and every other occasion we have in the country wherever we go, and to whomsoever we speak, to express the
1330
concern which I have expressed today—as indeed have other noble Lords—and to use our advocacy to achieve a change of outlook on the importance of manufacturing industry.
It is never too late to change. But the longer we wait, the greater will be the damage that will be done and the more painful will be the hard road back to a strong, growing manufacturing base.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Government are constantly telling us about their great, dramatic economic success—success, with a trade deficit of over £14 billion a year and, as the noble Viscount has just pointed out, now running at around £20 billion—and it looks as though the Chancellor of the Exchequer will again be wrong in his estimates; last year he was 300 per cent. wrong—with 2 million people at least still unemployed, with inflation now running at 8 per cent. and with interest rates, on which the borrowing for investment depends, set at 13 per cent? If that is success, what do the Government conceive to be failure?
It was a privilege for me to serve on the Select Committee which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and which was chaired in a most distinguished manner by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I learnt a great deal from that experience. I took, perhaps, a separate line from most of the other members of the committee, and I intend to do so tonight. I am glad to say that the committee was unanimous. The internal policies concerning manufacturing industry have been well outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Aldington, and I entirely agree with them.
However, there is another dimension here. I listened with interest to the figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I too have those figures; but I also have some others. I must say quite frankly that I draw different conclusions from the same set of figures. Indeed, I should like to put another proposition forward based on an examination of the breakdown of the figures of our balance of payments deficit.
The noble Baroness pointed out that in 1980 we almost had a balance of trade with Europe. However, she did not point out that that year was art extraordinary one. During that year—which marked the beginning of this Government—the Government had virtually crushed enterprise and destroyed industrial activity. In 1980 there was in fact a balance of trade deficit of only £50 million with the European Community; but the previous year that figure had been over £3.5 billion. I shall not dwell on that contrast, but I should like to point out to the House that in 1970, before we entered the European Community, the balance of trade deficit with the European Community was only £29 million. This year that deficit is £14,853 million. That is with the European Community alone. In other words, the total trade deficit in this country in 1988 was due to our trading relations with the European Community.
What I should like to draw from that fact is the contrast between our trading position with the European Community and our trading position with

1331
the developing world. I hardly need to repeat in this House what I have said so often before: there is a closed market. However, there is a potential market which consists of half the population of the world. If we are to improve our factories—indeed, now they will have to be rebuilt—and if we are to get our machines working again, I believe that our best opportunity is to look to that potential where people want our goods; and where the workers in this country could be providing such goods. In my view we are on a false trail if we do as the noble Baroness suggested and continue to concentrate on trade with Europe. That does not mean to say that we should not trade with Europe, but I am talking here about concentration. I believe that we are neglecting, and have neglected for many years now, that half of the world's market. Many of the people in that part of the world are starving and are looking for such goods. We must play our part in the reorganisation of the global economy, not just from the point of view of charity—and certainly from the point of view of social peace on our planet—but also in the interests of the manufacturing industry in this country.
If one looks back over those figures, it was in 1977 that this country changed from having a deficit in its trading relations with the developing world to having a surplus. Moreover, ever since that year the surplus has been constant, though it has gone up and down somewhat. In fact, last year it was only £1,075 million; yet the previous year it stood at £2,753 million.
The contrast between our trading relationships with the developing world and with the European Community are so stark that they simply cannot be ignored. The noble Lord who is to reply to the debate very courteously sent me some figures, in answer to a question, which quite naturally, he had not been able to answer during Question Time. I give Latin America as one example. Between 1979 and 1988, in figures corrected to constant prices, our exports to Latin America fell by 29 per cent. Our imports rose—but by 5 per cent. only. That is merely one example of the stagnation of trade with the developing world. One could add what is happening in trade between this country and Africa. If one looks at the third world as a whole, we have constantly had a surplus in trade whereas the deficit with the European Community has risen to astronomical heights and is still rising.
Here I suggest, is an open market. I do not say that it is the whole answer; it is however important, certainly for the next quarter or half a century. But we have to play our part in reorganising the international economic system. There are two main factors retarding our trade and, indeed, trade between the whole of the developed world and the developing world. The first is debt; the second is commodity prices. I cannot go into the details of both tonight. I shall concentrate on debt.
The Government have a part to play. As has been pointed out, the climate that the Government create for industry has its own innate importance in our industrial future. That applies even more to our trade with third world countries than it does to the disastrous trade that is now going on with our major competitors in Europe.
1332
The economic problem at the heart of the debt crisis is the enormous flow of resources paid by the debtors, that is, the developing countries, to their richer creditors, that is, our country and the developed world. The World Bank estimates that in 1988 interest and principal repayments by the debtors exceeded new lending by no less than 43 billion dollars. That is the extent to which the third world is financing the developed world every year. Such an enormous flow can be generated only by the debtors importing less, that is, taking fewer of our goods, and exporting goods that they themselves could consume. No wonder there is starvation and death thoughout the third world! That constraint is the main reason why living standards throughout the third world—Latin America, Africa and many parts of Asia—are today one tenth below what they were 10 years ago.
I know that there have been plans. There was the James Baker plan which urged the banks to lend more money to cut the transferred resources. However, the banks did not do it. There was no mechanism. Why should they do it? Now there is the Nicholas Brady plan, which is slightly different. It suggests that new lending should be produced to cut the old debt and subsidise a part of the interest payments. That depends again on the banks. Will the banks play at this game? It is very doubtful. The IMF and the World Bank are now geared to play a part in the debt reduction. If they do, it means that they will have to reduce their resources for rescue programmes and lending cuts resource loads, so the debt problem is constantly growing. One sees the evidence of this in the riots in democractic Venezuela and the food riots in Zambia last year.
I concede that the Government have made some contributions. They have cancelled a few debts. But, as the Prime Minister said in that notorious programme, it has been just a teeny, teeny bit, well outweighed by the reduction in overseas aid from this country over the past 10 years from 0.53 per cent. of our gross national product to 0.28 last year. This is seedcorn for our potential customers. It can be added to by the use of our diplomatic missions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, and by a more generous or less mean attitude by the Department of Trade and Industry towards assisting in exports through the Government's own overseas trade board.
Government guidance and encouragement are essential. We know that the task is for industry itself, but much depends on how the Government encourage that industry. The Government have found it possible to encourage exports to South Africa. Why do they not do that for third world countries that are gasping for our goods?
On this attitude to the future depends the health of the global community. On it too depend British employment and British economic progress and the prospect for the deprived peoples in our own community of a new form of prosperity offering hope to the unemployed and the deprived regions. Above all there is the chance to start our machines going again, to open up our factories and to provide the opportunity for our workers to produce the goods that half the world still cries out for.
7.8 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, has delivered a very important speech. The rhetoric of the Government for a long time has appeared to favour business. We heard only two weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, instructing us on the importance of favouring business. In fact, what it seems to me the Government tend to favour is commerce at the expense of industry. Industry is a rather more empirical business than the Government tend to allow.
I am a little disturbed by the doctrine which has emanated from Washington in the last few weeks and is now becoming popular here to the effect that one really need not worry too much about a balance of payments deficit because one can finance it. It sounds like Mrs. Noah in the Coventry mystery play assuring Noah that there was no need to fuss so much about a shower of rain and in any case she would not move unless she could bring her gossips with her.
The reason why that argument is not sound in the long term, whatever soundness it may have in the short term, is that the financing of a deficit must be done by jacking up interest rates. The remark of Sir Josiah Child, which has become no less true in the 300 years since it was made, that doubling the rate of interest, in effect, halves the amount of capital available for investment, is a point of considerable importance. The level of industrial investment in this country is not something of which we have been able to be very proud over the years. If we jack up interest rates, it costs more to invest money and it becomes a hindrance to industrial growth. So I think that if we go on financing a deficit with high interest rates, we shall impede the growth of our manufacturing sector even further and be even less able to pay off the deficit than we were before.
When I think about what industry needs from a government, I suspect that it is very like what universities want from a government: stable conditions and a secure infrastructure, suitable conditions in order to do the job and beyond that to be left alone to get on with it. It seems to me that we are not really getting any of these. When one thinks about the conditions that produced the Industrial Revolution, as people on the Government Benches frequently exhort us to do, it is not just a matter of a particular spirit but of particular economic conditions, some of which we can reproduce and some of which we cannot. We cannot reproduce the dominance we had in the energy market at that time; we cannot reproduce the captive overseas markets that we had at that time. But it is worth remembering that up until the beginning of the Napoleonic wars the Industrial Revolution progressed with interest rates at 3 per cent. How much more investment could we make with interest rates at 3 per cent.!
It is also worth remembering that it progressed with what at the time was, I think, the best internal transport system in Europe. That is absolutely vital to industrial costs, and the CBI survey on transport in London makes highly perturbing reading. It says that every British household has to spend at last £5
1334
per week more than it need do on goods and services to meet the costs to business of congestion on road and rail. This is equivalent to 2p on the basic rate of income tax. That is a figure worth thinking about. It also says that, assuming distribution accounts for 10 per cent. of GDP, a competitive disadvantage of, say, 15 per cent. would represent an annual waste of the order of £6 billion, not far short of the nation's annual expenditure on civil research and development. That also is worth thinking about. There is such a thing as the conditions to do the job—that is the Government's business,
In addition, we should think about the persistent government policy of trying to get industry to pay for those things which the Government want to take off the public spending budget. For example, when we were discussing Morley College in the course of the debates on the education Bill, it was suggested from the Government Front Bench that money could be found from industry. My noble friend Lady Seear remarked in surprise that she thought that the point of profits was to lower prices or raise dividends. It was a breath of fresh air.
We hear, for example, about the possibility of industrial employers having to recruit graduates by paying off their student loans for them. We hear of universities exhorted to go out and get money from industry. That is fine for universities; there is no problem from our point of view. But I wonder whether it is quite such a good thing from industry's point of view—and so does the CBI. What it has to say about the policy is this:
"Industry cannot be expected to fund undergraduate Higher Education more extensively than it does already, indirectly through taxation and directly by special industrial support and sponsorship … there is no prospect of industry collectively intervening to shoulder a large part of the cost burden of Higher Education currently met from central and local government funds. This must continue to be the responsibility of government, paid for through taxation to which all contribute".
If industry has to pay for these things, that means inevitably an increase in industrial costs; and an increase in industrial costs must feed through either in the form of lower profits or of raised prices. Neither of those seems to me to be in the interests of our manufacturing industry. This policy of cutting back public spending and asking industry to pay should be regarded as a form of indirect taxation. Those who do it cannot pride themselves on reducing the burden of taxation. We ought to leave industry alone, let it pay for its own business and give it the conditions in which to get on with the job
7.16 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I doubt that the Government have an economic policy at all; that is, they have a financial policy because, as has been stated in the debate, they tend to have tunnel vision and to concentrate their minds on the money problem and the money problem alone. It is quite obvious that in this country there is a clash of interests in the demand between the City and manufacturing industry. The former is short-term—the City wants quick profits, speculative profits. Industry on the other hand wants long-term investment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, in what I thought was a very fine contribution to the debate,

1335
posed a question rhetorically: why is it that Toyota can invest in this country in the way it is doing? Why can we not do so? I think the noble Viscount provided part of the answer, but I suggest also that for many years in Japan Toyota ploughed back all its profits into research, development, expansion and so on. It was not pressed for immediate dividends and profits.
If anybody tries to do that in this country m manufacturing industry, he is immediately hammered by the City. I know that because I have to declare an interest. I am a non-executive director in a company that is probably one of the success stories of this country in recent times. It manufactures and sells abroad a great deal. Because the margin of manufacture is so much less than in retailing, we are constantly receiving advice to concentrate on retailing and give up manufacturing. We manufacture almost entirely in this country. That might be good immediate advice to a company which is only concerned with immediate profits, but it is very bad advice for the country It so happens that there is this clash. It seems to me that the Government have concentrated for 10 years on the City, on what the City demands, on what the money interests demand, and not on what industry demands. I think we see the situation today where the chickens are about to come home to roost.
The most disturbing fact about our economy is that the size of our manufacturing industry, if we measure it in terms of productivity and not physical size, is about the same as it was a decade ago. In physical size I suggest that it is probably very much smaller. In relation to our population of 56 million people and our history of success in the early development of industrial skills and technology, it is depressingly small.
It is all the more disturbing in that during this decade, as my noble friend Lord Ezra has already said, we have had the full benefit of the bonanza of North Sea oil, which provided a substantial proportion of government revenue. It provided 12.9 per cent. of government revenue in 1984; it provided us with a considerable proportion of our export revenue—;21.1 per cent. in 1984. It also provided not a negligible proportion of our gross national product—;6 per cent. in 1984. For the past three years that proportion has gone down to 2 per cent. There lies the root of our present problem. Our current balance of payments problems are clearly bad enough, but where would we be without North Sea oil? That is the 64,000 dollar question, for in the longer term we shall be without it.
It is perfectly fair to contrast our economic performance, aided by North Sea oil, with that of comparable Western economies such as West Germany and France, which have had no such outside windfall assistance. We do not come out well from such a study.
I recommend to everyone, and to all Government Ministers, an analysis which was made of nine countries by the Harvard Business School. It was published at the end of 1987, and is entitled Ideology and National Competitiveness. The three European countries that were selected among the nine were
1336
West Germany, France and the UK. Needless to say, we were at the bottom of the league in Europe by a long way. However, it is interesting to find that Britain came eighth of the nine countries examined. An analysis of our future prospects was made. The publication was written not by Left-wing extremists but by one of the powerhouses of Western capitalism. The prognosis of that body for this country is pretty poor.
The one really optimistic sign for our manufacturing industry, which has already been referred to, is that our productivity shows signs of increasing per man unit. However, our national productivity is not increasing because of our failure to invest adequately in manufacturing industry. The rise in productivity could, however, provide an important springboard for future expansion provided there is adequate investment in enlarging and supporting our manufacturing base.
However, even now doubts have been raised about the accuracy of the figures in the Treasury's Economic Progress Report No. 201. It is said that the report does not take account of the increasing habit in industry of contracting out or leasing in ancillary activity. As Miss Sarah Hogg pointed out in Monday's Independent, the report "artificially raises recorded productivity".
The oil revenue has certainly not been used to restore Great Britain's manufacturing base. It has largely gone overseas. What real benefit does our country get from it? It is said to be reflected in the invisible earnings. But what safeguard is there that money which has been generated in this country and has gone abroad will ever be repatriated? Why should it be? If there were a change of government, I believe there would be an engineered flow of capital from this country. The basis has already been laid for that.
The benefit to this country of this investment overseas and this exodus of capital is far more dubious and uncertain than if the money had been used to develop and concentrate, as West Germany has done, for example, on fulcrum industries. We do not have the nurturing by our banking system and investment houses of selective fulcrum industries that occurs in West Germany. We have not had, as France has had, the steady, slow burning expansion of an economy. We have not concentrated on industries which have potential for future growth and are crucial for future national adaptation. Everything has been left to the forces of the market, but those forces are inadequate.
This Government have certainly failed to face up to the medium and long-term consequences of what appears to be, under them, the intractable problem of the decline of our manufacturing base. Yet, how can we possibly maintain in the future a population of 56 million people at a reasonable standard of living without a much larger manufacturing base?
As I have already mentioned, most companies who have manufacturing bases in this country are often advised by the financial houses to reduce them. I give the example of the retail profits in the sale of cars. They are much greater than the profits that are derived from car manufacturing. We can see the decline of the car industry in this country compared with the car industry of our competitors in France

1337
and Germany, let alone Japan. What good does it do our country in the long run to be so dominated by the City of London, which is always looking for short-term results and which is constantly pressing for the bottom line to be improved, when it is in the interests of our country that there should be far more investment in long-term developments in our industry?
The Government's reversion to the encouragement of a rugged, extreme form of individualism as the principal means of overcoming our economic problems is inadequate to meet the international challenge of our time. We will never build an adequate export trade to balance the cost of imports if we sacrifice our home market largely to imported goods. How can we capture the export trade if we cannot successfully compete with imports at home? That is impossible.
The Government's whole approach to this problem has been too short term. It has been too concerned about the short term and too little concerned about the long-term investment needs of manufacturing industry. The Government's approach is too credulous about the benefits of free trade in a world where our main competitors see and cater for the limitations of free trade.
There is a crying need for domestic co-ordination of our economic policy, as occurs among our competitors. We lack what the Harvard Business School publication describes as "a broad communitarian base" on which to build a new and positive consensus. That publication points out that not only in France and Germany, but also in the countries of the Pacific Rim, there is a communitarian interest. There long-term interests are built into economic policy. When Japan, for example, decides to invest in this country, it has already calculated where the investment should be made. It has already made its sacrifices at home and decided not to remove all profits by way of dividends. It has decided to plough the profits back into the investment. Germany has followed a similar policy through a different mechanism. In Germany there is the influence of the German investment banks.
But how are we to obtain domestic co-ordination in this country? Without it we shall not achieve true national competitiveness, because a simple reliance on rugged individualism, adversarial relations in industry and a series of narrow, short-term financial measures is not good enough.
We on these Benches acknowledge the globalisation of manufacturing, transport, communications and marketing. We recognise the increased integration of business firms all around the world. We see the need for more global management of competition as a necessary corollary and supplement to free trade. We need a managed market. The founding fathers of the Common Market realised that. They foresaw the need for a managed market to, as it were, set certain parameters to competition. They set in train the creation of a structure which might at least manage a market and safeguard the well-being of the Western European Community as a step in the direction of global management.
1338
The latest step in this development of the EC is economic and monetary union. It is typical of this Government that the Prime Minister turned it down immediately. I should have thought that an arrangement for monetary co-operation in Europe was an absolute must. In the longer term we are the one European country which will most need all the protection and benefits of a common European market. Here we are today with the inflation rate at 8 per cent. It was 10.3 per cent. when the Prime Minister came into power. We have a forecast balance of payments deficit of about £15 billion. We have unemployment at between 2 million and 3 million. We have a higher rate of inflation than any other major industrial country. I said at the outset of my remarks that I think that the chickens are coming home to roost. All the indications are that they are.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having introduced this debate this afternoon. The figures that he has supplied relating to our situation are completely accurate. The fact that they have been supplemented by my noble friend Lady Blackstone makes it quite unnecessary for me to recite the statistics again. On all forecasts there will be a deficit in trade in manufactured goods which by the end of the year may be anything between £18 billion and £20 billion according to the current rate of progress.
What I find so depressing about this is the Government's attitude towards what by all accounts and to most serious-minded people in the United Kingdom is a very serious position indeed. The Government normally take two lines. First, they pretend that there really is not a problem; that ultimately automaticity will take care of it; that by some queer amalgam the surplus on the service industries and on services will somehow miraculously make up for any deficit on the manufacturing side, however that grows.
First of all, they pretend that there is no problem. They supplement that invariably, if one quotes the export figures relating to manufactures and compares them with imports which grossly exceed them, by saying that much of that is due to the fact that we are importing a very large quantity of capital goods in order to build up our industries. Most informed economists know that that is complete nonsense. If the noble Lord wants any documentation on that he has only to read a very important feature in his party's journal, the Daily Telegraph, for Monday last which disposes of that nonsense.
Alternatively, the noble Lord or his noble friend Lord Young of Graffham replies with a recitation of statistics, suitably picked for very convenient years in order to show how wonderfully we are doing at the moment. One is given comparisons in some industries of performance in 1983 as compared with 1987. In some cases 1986 is compared with 1987. I have a list here and I have no doubt that when the noble Lord comes to reply I shall be able to tick off against that list the most flattering comparisons by

1339
selected years that the noble Lord is able to make of the performance of British industry.
So, as I say, they endeavour to prove that everything is really all right. That argument is normally supplemented by glowing accounts from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, about his colourful visits to various parts of the country in which he finds bounding enthusiasm and signs of prosperity everywhere.
That does not always suffice because the Government have an uneasy feeling, which they do not like to express, that things probably are not going too well. Having asserted there is really no problem they then state if there is a problem it is due to excessive wages and the necessity for us to become competitive. That argument is probably best answered by a very important contribution to the Financial Times yesterday by Sir John Collyear, who is a former chairman of the Technology Requirements Board. He said:
"It is a dangerous mistake to assume that UK lack of cost competitiveness can be solved (other than by temporary respite) by concentrating on holding down wage rates or wishing for a cheaper currency. UK labour wage rates, including 'fringes', are low by comparison with our important competitors, even at current exhange rates".
If the ordinary worker's claims for the work that he does are not the principal cause of our present disarray and our present lack of a developing manufacturing base, who is responsible? There are only three other ingredients. There are those who provide the capital; there are those who provide the management; and finally there is the Government, whose nominal responsibility at any rate is to secure the co-ordination of the whole.
Bearing in mind that manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom has still, in 1989, to reach the level of 1979, let us consider where capital has gone. Quite clearly capital has not gone in any abundance to the development of productive assets in the United Kingdom, at any rate beyond the level at which it stood in 1979. If one looks at the figures one finds that in the past nine years—;1980 to 1988 inclusive—£80 billion of British capital has been invested overseas as against some £30 billion that has been invested in the United Kingdom. I am ignoring portfolio investment for the moment, but if challenged I can give the figures.
Why? Why has not some reasonable proportion been invested in this country to meet what I consider to be the modest requirements put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson? Where has the capital gone? Why has not capital, which presumably has some social responsibility in terms of the institutions that enjoy the protection of our country and many of its benefits, provided the extra 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. which would be necessary to develop properly the manufacturing industrial base of this country?
Noble Lords have referred to this point. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, did so in part, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. The fact is that market forces by themselves do not take care of the problem. The instructions given to investment analysts and their managers in stockbrokers every morning are
1340
these: they have three choices—hold, sell, or buy. Those are the three decisions they have to make.
It is abundantly clear that short-termism and the necessity for one institution to vie with another makes them seek the most immediate investment opportunities offering the most profitable returns. That is called short-termism. It has been added to not only by the devotion of capital to mergers and acquisitions, which add nothing to the productive assets of the United Kingdom at all, but also by the pre-emption of very large sums of money—billions of pounds—to acquire industries from the state by privatisation, where, as is well known, institutions can make a considerable profit. They must be smacking their lips at the prospect of investing large sums in industries that will have their debts paid off and their assets written down so that they can make a fat profit. Why should capital interests invest, other than out of patriotism—of which one should not accuse them—in manufacturing industry when there are lush sums to be made by easy acquisition, privatisation and other similar means?
The answer is in the figures themselves. There is a lack of investment in manufacturing industry. It is not the function of the ordinary working person in the United Kingdom to provide those funds. He provides his life and his work. Capital itself in the United Kingdom has not lived up—and, to be fair, has never been expected to live up—to any ethical standard that is required for the conduct of ordinary civilised life in the United Kingdom.
The second angle on this matter concerns management itself. In this matter, I am minded of the considerable investment made by the Japanese in the United Kingdom. Many reasons have been given and much speculation made as to why they choose to invest in the United Kingdom. In 1987, for example, they invested £1.5 billion in the United Kingdom. That was before the present Toyota proposals. The answer is of course that the British worker is regarded as one of the best workers in the world. The Japanese normally bring with them some six management staff instead of the 30 or 40 that are often extant in British firms. The fact that the Japanese can manage on a much smaller staff, but with a different social relationship within the works itself, is one of the most vital factors.
If the cap fits, it can be worn. There are many companies in the United Kingdom that conduct their relationships extremely pleasantly and co-operatively with their workers, without treating them as social inferiors. But that cannot be said for the rest because, under the current ethic and ideology, workers are merely digits. Nothing could be more revealing in that connection than the remarks of the noble Lord opposite a few weeks ago when he referred in an off-hand way to the shedding of labour. He did not refer to individuals as such, but purely to labour. The Japanese have discovered a way of getting the best out of workers. They have done it in their own country, and thank goodness, they are doing it here because it is one of our defects.
The Government ignore all those factors. They are driven along solely by an ideology that was more at home in pre-war years and in the times of Montagu Norman and Hawtrey at the Treasury than it is

1341
nowadays. The Government are responsible. They follow one single ideology of market forces which, while they have their use in our country, have no relevance as an overall solution to our country's problems.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have listened intently to a typically thoughtful debate on a subject that we all agree to be of great importance. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this debate. However, I feel that noble Lords who have spoken have painted a most gloomy picture. I do not accept that the situation is nearly as bad as so many noble Lords have pointed out.
I should like to remind the House of the economic context in which our debate is taking place. We have seen eight years of steady economic growth at an average rate of about 3 per cent. That is the fastest rate of sustained growth in the European Community. For 20 years before that, our growth was the slowest. There are now more jobs in the economy than at any time since statistics began to be collected. Unemployment has fallen for 32 consecutive months and is now the second lowest in the Community, with only Germany lower. We have eliminated the Budget deficit and have achieved a substantial level of public sector debt repayment.
Those are genuine achievements, not just of government but of the economic activities of people—workers and managers alike. The Government fully recognise the full partnership between workers and management, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, wishes to suggest. It has been achieved by working within the framework of the best economic climate that this country has seen for many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, praised the framework, but criticised interest rates as a simplistic policy. Perhaps I may explain why interest rates are the main policy instrument. The role of monetary policy is to control inflation. Short-term interest rates are the essential instrument of monetary policy. They are the only instruments, available between Budgets in today's sophisticated markets. The economy has been suffering from a build-up of inflationary pressures. As inflation is a monetary phenomenon, monetary policy is the appropriate cure. That means that short-term interest rates must be increased, and the Government have done that. Credit controls and similar measures would be ineffective and inefficient in today's sophisticated financial markets. They would also be unfair in that they bear more harshly on less well off and less sophisticated borrowers and, to the extent to which they were effective, they would work by raising the cost of credit. That can be achieved more simply and effectively by raising interest rates.
Furthermore, the Government's priority is to maintain downward pressure on inflation. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear on many occasions that he will set interest rates at whatever level will achieve that. High interest rates are unwelcome, both to companies
1342
and to many individuals, including those with large mortgages (though not of course to savers). But the alternative of accelerating inflation would be far more unwelcome. Interest rates are typically a fairly small proportion of business costs. Firms can do a great deal to contain their other costs, particularly pay costs. Those are rising well above the rate of inflation and are tending to accelerate.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will agree that there are many areas in which industry can contain its costs. My noble friend Lord Aldington mentioned the increase in unit labour costs in manufacturing, which was only 2 to 3 per cent.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I said 1 per cent.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, 1 per cent. But it is falling in other countries. Manufacturing earnings are increasing by over 9 per cent. a year and that must be controllable by industry.
My noble friend and other noble Lords talked about high exchange rates. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he is not prepared to engineer depreciation in the value of sterling. At best this would give a short-term boost to exports. All past experience shows that the gains would be rapidly dissipated by accelerating inflation, leaving the situation worse than before. The example of Germany shows that a strong currency need be no bar to export success.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords have sought to argue that the country's manufacturing base is somehow inadequate, either in its overall size or in the range of goods that we produce; and that this is responsible for a significant part of the deficit which has emerged in the current account of the balance of payments.
I have several difficulties with that line of argument. Manufacturing output has grown steadily since 1981. It now stands at a record level—some 5 per cent. above the previous peak in 1974 and 8 per cent. above the level when this Government came into office in 1979. Manufacturing employment, on the other hand, is at about 5.2 million, which represents a fall of almost 30 per cent. since 1979. This means that output per head in manufacturing is half as high again as when we entered office. Profitability in manufacturing has also risen every year since 1981. By 1987 the real rate of return in manufacturing industry had reached 9' per cent., which is the highest figure for 20 years. I am confident that when the 1988 figure becomes available it will be even higher. That is not a record which suggests there is very much wrong with the manufacturing base.
My noble friend Lord Aldington and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, took an historic perspective. I reply that in the 1970s British industry suffered from a combination of overmanning, excessive union power and poor management, while the economy itself stagnated. That was the seed corn of economic disaster. It is only now that that situation is being overturned.
A number of speakers, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Hooson, have compared Britain's manufacturing performance with that of

1343
our competitors. In virtually all the advanced industrial countries, the percentage of GDP accounted for by manufacturing has fallen and that of services has risen. Britain is no exception. The figure fell from 25.6per cent. in 1979 to 21.8 per cent. in 1986, which is the most recent year for which comparative figures are available. The comparable figures for the USA are 23 per cent. and 19.9 per cent.; for Italy they are 30.6 per cent. and 23.4 per cent. Only Japan is an exception to this general trend. The UK increase of 8 per cent. in manufacturing output in 1988 compared with 1978 is in line with the figures for Germany and Canada (10 per cent.), and Italy (13 per cent.). In France the increase was only 2 per cent. Only the United States and Japan of the major economies recorded significantly higher increases in manufacturing output over that period. When it comes to the growth of manufacturing productivity, the UK performance in the 1980s has been the best of the major economies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, spoke of the challenge to manufacturing industry of the single European market. Within the Community we are winning one-third of inward investment from the United States and from Japan. We are seen as the best location for manufacture. I was amazed by the words of the noble Baroness on the challenge of 1992. After all, it is the Department of Trade and Industry and my noble friend the Secretary of State who are at the forefront of the fight to make British industry realise what 1992 is all about. I wonder—since when has the Labour Party been a supporter of 1992 and the single free market?
The noble Baroness also asked about LINK. The DTI is involved in 10 LINK programmes and proposals for projects in these areas are being generated at a healthy rate. Delays are inevitable at the start of such multi-partner collaborations. Twelve projects are under way and over 256 more are under discussion.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with a point raised by the noble Baroness concerning export promotion and the increase in charges. These charges are an important means of signalling to the Government the services that industry finds most useful. I hardly think that £300 will deter industries from continuing their export efforts.
Several noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend Lord Aldington and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, have spoken of "gaps" in the manufacturing base. There is no reason why we should produce goods of every description in the United Kingdom. The gains to be obtained from specialisation are a central argument for an open trading system. Any attempt by the Government to fill those "gaps" by subsidising uneconomic production would merely produce a less efficient allocation of resources. I repeat what I said on earlier occasions; it must be up to industry to decide for itself what to produce.
The current account deficit which has emerged over the past year or so followed a number of years of surplus. The deficit was not the result of a sudden collapse of manufacturing in the UK. Both manufac
1344
turing output and manufacturing exports have recorded healthy growth over this period. Noble Lords may remember as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, that at the beginning of the decade we saw the exact opposite of the present situation. A sharp drop in manufacturing output was accompanied by a large trade surplus. I wonder whether those noble Lords who have spoken critically would find that situation more reassuring than the one that we have today. Over the recent period our exports have held their share of world trade in manufactures. The deficit is due, so far as manufactures are concened, to the very sharp increase in imports. That has been due in part to the unexpectedly rapid increase in consumption. But consumer goods account for only a quarter of the increase in import of manfactures between 1987 and 1988. I can point out to my noble friend Lord Aldington that the major surge has been in investment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked how much more investment there would be if interest rates stood at 3 per cent. as in the Industrial Revolution. It is not investment that is a problem. In the short term, investment leads to increased imports of materials, intermediate goods and capital equipment. In time, increased investment will produce additional capacity which will enable the deficit to be reduced, but it has been necessary in the meantime to tighten monetary policy and slow down the growth of spending. There are signs that the measures taken to achieve that are having an effect. Although of course one should not make too much of one month's figures, today's trade figures are to be welcomed and show that the Government's policies are at least heading in the right direction.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, can he just confirm that he believes and is saying that greater investment by industry in new product development is unnecessary?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the existing level of investment is extremely high and extremely worth while and we seek to see that continue. Certainly we shall seek to see it higher so long as it leads to the production of things that people want to buy. This Government believe that ultimately industry will be able to overcome that challenge.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. Does he or does he not accept the fact that investment in manufacturing industry today has not yet reached the same level that it was in 1979?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that it has but I could be wrong. I do not have the figure to hand. If I am wrong, I apologise to the noble Lord. I am not sure exactly of the point he was trying to make with his question, but there it is. Time is short, so I shall continue my remarks. A number of noble Lords mentioned the report of the Select Committee of which my noble friend was chairman. It has been suggested that the emergence of a current account

1345
deficit was vindicated by the report four years ago of that Select Committee. With great respect to the committee, there are more differences than similarities between the situation envisaged in the report and that which now exists.
I do not think that I need go into any examples. However, there are a number of areas that were not even foreseen by that great committee. Transport infrastructure was raised by a number of noble Lords, among them the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This is an area where the Government are continuing to spend more money on both roads and rail. We have the biggest renewal programme in rail since the switch from steam to diesel in the 1950s.
"Short-termism" was another problem raised in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Bruce of Donington. This is a so-called "problem". It has not prevented the rapid increase in manufacturing investment over the past two to three years. Companies with a proven track record of innovation command a healthy market rating and great respect within the City. If a company feels under short-term pressure the answer often lies in better communication with shareholders or providers of finance and in informing them of their R&D programmes and long-term objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, gave not one single specific example where short-termism had been a problem.
All noble Lords will be aware from earlier debates that this Government do not believe that the right approach is to intervene to promote manufacturing in this or that sector—nor to engineer a depreciation of sterling as a short-term boost to exports. Those policies have been tried and have failed too often in the past. The right approach is to create an economic climate of low inflation and prudent public finance in which business of all kinds can prosper. The last two weeks have seen the announcement of major inward investments in the United Kingdom by Fujitsu, Bosch and Toyota. Three world class manufacturing companies have shown in the clearest way possible their faith in Britain as a manufacturing country. I wish that some in your Lordships' House were as ready to acknowledge what British industry, with this Government's help, has achieved.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We shall certainly come back to this question again.
I believe that all of us, with the exception of the noble Lord who has just spoken, were of one mind: that although British industry has achieved a great deal—there is no denying the big improvements in productivity—the size of our manufacturing capacity is still not large enough for us to face up to the competition of other countries. That is a question to which we shall come back again. We shall try to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to accept that what we are saying has a germ of truth in it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

UK Citizens in Canada: Pensions
8.3 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider, as a matter of urgency, the index-linking of pensions of retired British citizens living in Canada.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is about retired British citizens now living in Canada whose plight, I submit, is urgent, unjust and unfair. I shall try to explain why in the few minutes at my disposal this evening.
Latest figures, when we can obtain them, suggest that there are about 50,000 people living in Canada receiving some kind of British pension. These pensions vary in amount because pensions paid to British pensioners now living there are frozen at the rates current when they left the United Kingdom or when they first became entitled to a pension if they emigrated before retirement. If they return to the United Kingdom for a visit on holiday or on business, their pension is unfrozen for the duration of the visit and refrozen from the day that they leave the United Kingdom.
These are not people who have turned their backs on Britain for tax reasons or who have chosen to emigrate to Canada to enjoy the climate. No; in the main they are people who have gone to Canada for family reasons, to spend the twilight of their lives with sons or daughters, possibly their last living relatives, and to enjoy watching grandchildren whom they might otherwise never see growing into adulthood.
Most of them paid full national insurance contributions and income taxes during their working lives in Britain and so qualified, in the same way as most of us in this Chamber have done, for an indexed retirement pension. Had they chosen to go to any one of 29 other countries—for example, such countries as Austria, Bermuda, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Yugoslavia or the United States of America, to name but a few—they would be receiving a fully indexed pension because we have negotiated reciprocal social security agreements with those countries.
I applaud those agreements and the fact that our retired people in those 29 countries can and do receive regularly up-rated pensions. But in the absence of a similar reciprocal agreement with Canada, many of our people are reduced to living off relatives, or doing some part-time work if it is available and if they are able to do it, in order to supplement their frozen pensions. Some 20,000 of our people are receiving less than £10 per week. I know from letters that I receive from pensioners or their relatives and from contacts that I have with the British Pensioners Association in Canada that many of these very elderly people are suffering real hardship.
By way of illustration, I should like to quote a few extracts from one or two letters that are typical of scores that I and my fellow members of the all-party pensioners group receive on this issue. Writing from Alberta, an elderly lady says:

1347
"My husband and I both did war service, he making aircraft, and I in the fire service, but still we have been deprived of the pension increase since we came here to be near our only son in 1980. My husband is 76, and I am 70 years of age and both of us working part-time to augment our meagre pension so we can afford subsidised housing, kindly provided for us. Our pension is under $300 for the two of us, and our rent is $362"—;
that is per month—
"so you can see our plight".
Another gentleman writes from Ontario:
"I spent all my working life in England. I fought through the war in the Royal Air Force and was awarded the DFC and Bar. These awards seem rather hollow now and I would be prepared to swap them for an indexed pension".
Another gentleman from Ontario says:
"My wife (age 77) and I (age 79) are permanent residents in Canada, having on 20 June 1985 emigrated from England (our birthplace) to be nearer to our son and daughter at their request. Our being here, you will appreciate, is a great comfort and help to us as we grow older. As you well know, my state pension from the United Kingdom and that of my dependent wife…do not have the benefit of the supplements paid in Britain. Having paid the correct contributions over the years like others in the UK I would have thought it reasonable and fair to apply the increases to us automatically…we moved to Canada on grounds of humanity to be nearer to, and within the comfort of, our own families as we grow older. I understand the increases are paid to UK pensioners living in the USA".
I have mentioned that—and in other countries.
There are many scores of such letters from people who are suffering real hardships and cannot understand why there is still no reciprocal agreement that would help; and nor can I. Canadian pensioners living here already receive a supplement from their government and have done so for a number of years. Why then have we no reciprocal agreement with Canada, a Commonwealth country, with a record of friendship and loyalty to Britain second to none?
It might be helpful to consider what has happened so far and to review the current situation. Between 1969 and 1972 discussions took place between the two governments about a reciprocal agreement on a proposal put forward by the British Government at the time. The proposal would have provided for future increases in rate, but not past increases, to be paid to UK pensioners in Canada. That is what we are now asking for. It also tried to persuade Canada to export basic old-age security pensions without conditions as part of an agreement.
This provision created legal and technical difficulties for the Canadian Government at the time. No immediate agreement could be reached. By 1977, however, Canada had been able to carry through amendments to its old-age security legislation and once again indicated its readiness to commence negotiations. Discussions took place in 1977 and in 1978, when Britain made it clear that there were now constraints on public expenditure which meant that the necessary resources were not available for the unfreezing of pensions in Canada. Further attempts were made by the Canadian Government to reach agreement, but the response was still the same until 1983, when United Kingdom officials implied that the Government might be prepared to allocate the necessary funds. Indeed later in that same year the need for an urgent agreement was discussed by our present Prime Minister and the then Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, at a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
But in November of the same year the United Kingdom Government informed the Canadian Government that they could not proceed with a social security agreement, and there the matter still rests. But the campaign for partial unfreezing is gaining momentum. How much would it cost? There have been many attempts by all of us to get accurate estimates of what the cost would be. I believe that we are given more propaganda than accurate researched estimates. However, I shall quote from the most up-to-date reply that we have received, written to my co-chairman of the group, Sir John Farr, from the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Skelmersdale. The reply was dated March 1988. He said:
"The Government's position on the matter has not changed since I wrote to you on 20 July and Nicholas Scott wrote on 29 October following your Parliamentary Question on the subject. The estimated cost of partial unfreezing of British pensioners in Canada is approximately £2 million based on April 1987 rates. This cost would, of course, increase each year until all British pensioners in Canada were receiving the same amount of pension as if they were resident in the United Kingdom.
While I take your point about the Canadian Government's willingness to contribute towards the cost of an agreement, the fact remains that the money for paying future increases in British pensions would still have to be found from the money available for social security and the cost would be great".
That was the most recent reply received.
The British Pensioners Association in correspondence over the years has suggested, among other things, that since pensioners living in Canada do not use the National Health Service, and nor do they use the United Kingdom social services, it ought to be possible to offset any savings against the costs of uprating United Kingdom pensions. In response to that suggestion the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in the other place replied, in 1986:
"The NHS and social services are part of the social structure that is available to residents here and they are financed on that basis. To draw an analogy, we do not give a cash benefit to those who opt for making private arrangements".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/4/1986; col. 401.]
I suggest that that analogy is no longer relevant because we are not in the process of creating all sorts of precedents and offering cash incentives. For example, we are in the process of proposing that people who pay national health pension premiums or private health premiums for their retired relatives can claim income tax relief. Cash rebates are available on those items. Cash incentives are being paid to people to go private. We are conducting a very expensive and intensive campaign to encourage people to go private in all kinds of health and welfare fields and in pensions. I think the analogy has been answered by the Government themselves, who have now conceded the principle of giving cash benefits and offering all kinds of incentives for people to go private.
In reply to a recent parliamentary Question, the Government have said that work is in hand on an agreement but the finance is not available. That is the most up-to-date position that we have. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will not just repeat the same old tired negative and insensitive responses that we have heard over the years but will try to reply to the very reasonable question being

1349
asked by those of us who are striving to bring this matter to a positive conclusion.
Perhaps I may repeat some of the questions we are being asked, questions such as: why people who have qualified, as we have, for a full pension are not receiving it? That is a simple and straightforward question. Why, when we accepted the case for a reciprocal agreement in the early 1970s—in fact we proposed a reciprocal agreement for a justified case, otherwise we should not have done so—are the Government now digging their heels in, the more so when we are told that the economy is far stronger now than for decades past? We are told that it is far stronger and healthier than it was 10 years ago. It can justifiably be argued that the money is now available, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in the previous debate. There is money; we are in surplus. The Government have money that they do not know how to spend. We are suggesting one reasonable and justifiable way of spending it.
Why have the United Kingdom been able in those circumstances to agree with 29 other countries, but not with Canada? What has been the progress in the discussions on a reciprocal agreement with the Soviet Union which was reported some months ago? Why, when the Canadian Government have offered such a generous contribution towards the cost of a reciprocal agreement—I understand that they offered 21.5 million dollars—towards the setting up of a reciprocal agreement, on top of the payments that they already make to Canadian pensioners in this country, have the Government not been able to make a more positive response?
The demand for a reciprocal agreement is supported by the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners in this country, by the trade union pensioners' organisations here, by the all-party Pensioners' Parliamentary Group, by Age Concern and by the British Pensioners Association in Canada, and last year 242 Members of Parliament signed an early day motion in support of such an agreement. That is a large number of MPs to sign such a motion. It was always understood that if 100 Members of Parliament signed an early day motion, it was almost automatically debated. But 242 signed a motion last year in favour of a reciprocal agreement. Currently a similar motion is attracting more and more signatures daily, and I believe it stands not far short of 100 now.
In the face of all this growing support, as well as the Canadian Government's overwhelming desire to enter a reciprocal agreement and their willingness to make a substantial financial contribution towards it, surely the time has now come for a more constructive response from our Government.
I end as I began. The plight of our retired people in Canada is urgent because of the hardship the present circumstances inflict on our people there. It is unjust, because these are people who have served their country in war time and have paid all their contributions and taxes in peacetime and have now gone, for perfectly understandable reasons, to live in a Commonwealth country. It is unfair and
1350
discriminatory because we have reciprocal agreements with every country where sizeable pockets of British people are living. The only exception is Canada. I submit that we owe it to our pensioners in Canada to initiate further negotiations forthwith with the Canadian Government with a view to signing a reciprocal social security agreement that will unfreeze pensions paid to United Kingdom pensioners in Canada.
8.20 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, we on these Benches are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for once again bringing to the attention of the Government the need to uprate the pensions of British people living in Canada. It is a serious problem which has dragged on for years. It has always received the same answer from the Government: that they cannot afford it. That is irrespective of the fact that it is high time that a satisfactory solution was found.
The Government recognise that in principle a case has been made. The all-party parliamentary group for pensioners support the objective of the British Pensioners Association of Canada to uprate retirement and widows' pensions in line with those of UK counterparts. I am at a loss. I cannot understand why someone living in Canada who receives a British pension should be treated differently to someone living here. For whatever reason, that person is being penalised for living in Canada.
In spite of the worry and the strength of feeling of pensioners in Canada and of the willingness of the Canadian Government to enter into agreements, the last time our Government had discussions with Canada about the subject was in 1983—; —;six years ago. The Government's stock reply is that it is too expensive to implement the uprating of pensions. They persist in saying that, and I assume they will continue to do so. They do not appear to be prepared to negotiate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has stated previously in this House that the Government accept the case for a comprehensive social security convention with Canada which will enable increases in pensions to be paid. I am sure that they would wish to do so but they persist in referring to the cost. What about the cost to the pensioners in Canada who feel let down?
I ask the Government to review the situation at last and to give a different answer to the one we are tired of hearing. I ask them to give some assurance or even a crumb to those who are asking to be treated fairly in line with their British counterparts living here and elsewhere.
8.22 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the famous orator Sir Edmund Burke once delivered a great speech. When he had finished the next speaker rose only to mutter, "I say ditto to Mr. Burke", and then sat down. I can do little more than say "ditto" to my noble friend Lord Stallard who presented his case most strongly. In any event, I have already made a speech today and it is a good rule—although one

1351
that is not always observed in this House—that one should not speak twice in one day.
I find my noble friends Lord Stallard and Lady Jeger deeply imbued with the subject. I realised that they have fought for the right for almost 20 years. The least I can do is to rise to my feet and say a little more than "ditto".
The attitude of the Government is mean; we can agree about that. One often accuses the Government of being mean—rightly so in this case. They are also mysterious. Why will they do nothing in connection with Canada? There are agreements with 29 other countries. I press the Minister hard for an answer. I cannot write his speech for him but I shall interrupt repeatedly if he does not answer the question. Why can there not be an agreement with Canada when there is an agreement with 29 other countries? The matter has dragged on for years. Is there a sinister bureaucrat somewhere blocking the issue? Was he committed to opposing it many years ago and still cannot let go? What is the trouble? It is obviously mean, but it is also so mysterious.
Having stressed the mystery I shall leave the subject to my noble friend Lady Jeger. I implore the noble Lord who values the reputation of his Government to explain the difficulty in this case.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Stallard. He has worked for many years to try to put right this obvious injustice. I feel a little sorry for the Minister because he looks as lonely as a hermit. Not a single Back Bencher is present to support him. He does not have a Whip's shoulder to weep on and only just now has the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rushed into the Chamber. No doubt he has done so to tell his noble friend that he should not say that the Government cannot afford the money, having himself told us in the preceding debate that there is "loads of money" and that the Government are doing marvellously; that is, except as regards British pensioners living in Canada. The indications are that none of his Back Benchers cares or that they are all to embarrassed to come here tonight to support a case which they know to be totally unjust and unfair. I know that privately many of them believe that to treat one country so differently is totally unacceptable.
When I first came to this House 10 years ago I found that the doors were shut as I was on the way out. When I asked the policeman why, he said, "Well, my Lady, it is seven o'clock". I know therefore that it is not regarded as being seemly for this House to sit for too long. However, there is a serious question to be asked, and I shall not be inhibited by the fact that it is now twenty-five past eight. Perhaps that is because I was brought up in the other place where twenty-five past eight is just about apéritif time.
Can the noble Lord say whether there is any consistency in the treatment of pensioners living in Canada? We heard from my noble friend Lord Stallard about the discrepancies which exist between one country and another—that I can go to Turkey to receive my uprating but that if I go to Canada I
1352
cannot. I am much more likely to have a boyfriend in Canada than in Turkey—or even a husband.
There is a further inconsistency. Can the Minister confirm my findings that if a person is in receipt of a public service pension or an armed forces pension, or if he is a retired Member of Parliament with an index-linked pension, he can take his index linking with him? Therefore, the index linking applies to public service pensioners such as firemen, policemen, retired soldiers, MPs and civil servants but not to ordinary working people who have paid their normal contributions as citizens of this country. In addition to the discrimination as regards the territory to which one retires there is also the totally unaccceptable discrimination between the status of the pensioners.
As my noble friend said, we have not taken into account the savings to the social services in this country. All the people I know who have gone to Canada have done so for family reasons. Many were war brides. They have their parents with them in order to care for them. A former constituent of mine who is now 99 years old became totally incapacitated and crippled with arthritis at the age of 70. Since then she has been cared for by her family in Canada —where the daughter went after the war to marry. Her son-in-law is now approaching the pension age in Canada. That old lady must have saved the Treasury—which has so much money to spare—thousands of pounds in health care, social service care and all the maintenance that would have been needed. I gather from my correspondence that there are many families in that position. We are not talking about high flyers who have rushed off to Canada because they will be paid better wages in the universities there than in England under this Government. They are mostly people who went there for family reasons, often connected with the war situation. Therefore, we have particular ties with them.
I do not know whether the noble Lord can explain—and I have great respect for his ability to explain the inexplicable—why there should be a distinction between two sisters, one of whom married a GI living in the United States and another about five miles away who married a Canadian soldier. I love them all, but I do not see why there should be a discrimination. The sister who is married on one side of the line can receive an increased pension, but the other sister cannot. I long to hear what the Minister says, because I believe that that is a challenge to his ingenuity, his generosity of thought and his sensibility about those matters. Whatever he says tonight, this problem will not go away. Thousands of people in Canada wish to know why the British Government are discriminating against them.
What is more, although I should not do this, I shall give the noble Lord a little political advice. Most of the letters I receive come from their families who are here and they have votes. They are the siblings. Many of them are not likely to vote Tory while their relatives in Canada are suffering from this discrimination. Therefore, if only for that selfish reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something more original than the earlier replies which we have received on this question.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness thought that I looked like a hermit and did not have a shoulder to rest on. I shall endeavour to answer as many of the points raised as possible in my speech. However, I expect that I shall not be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
I believe that I should start by thanking the noble Lord for raising this matter again. As he knows, this has been an issue for quite some time, and the debate will give me an opportunity to bring the House up to date on recent developments. However, first, I should like to give the background for those like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who may not be quite so familiar with the issues as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
Although British retirement and widows pensions are paid anywhere in the world, in the majority of cases, some 60 per cent. are paid without cost of living increases; that is, they are frozen. This means that retired people who go abroad will continue to receive their pensions at the rate payable when they leave this country. Those who emigrated when younger will get a pension payable at the rate in force when they reach retirement age. Neither group will get the benefit of subsequent annual upratings. This policy has been followed by successive governments since 1955. The logic is that our social security system has been designed to provide for people in this country and that annual upratings ensure that pensions are protected against price increases here. Indeed, until 1955, apart from countries with which we have reciprocal agreements, UK pensions were not payable abroad at all apart from short-term absences. A major change of policy occurred in July 1955 when the law was changed to allow pensions to be paid abroad. But there was still not provision for uprating; the expression commonly used is that pensions are frozen in these circumstances. It is fair to point out that people affected should have known, or found out, that this would be the position when they went abroad and should have arranged their affairs accordingly. After all, pensions have been frozen in this way for 34 years. I should like now to explain in more detail the situation of United Kingdom pensioners in Canada.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that, will he tell us about the reciprocal arrangements? He told us why pensioners do not have their pensions uprated in some countries. What is the explanation of reciprocal arrangements where pensioners receive increases not related to the cost of living here?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but I shall be coming to that. We have made reciprocal agreements with different countries at different times. Back in 1955, inflation was not seen to be the problem which it later became, and for historical reasons certain anomalies have grown up.
As I said, the noble Lord was worried about the numbers of pensioners in Canada and he believes that there are about 50,000. There are in fact over 83,000 retirement and widow pensioners in Canada who receive frozen pensions.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not believe that there has been an increase of 30,000 in the past two years. That is impossible. In fact, I know that there has not been that amount of emigration to Canada. That is why we cannot be certain about figures. We have now heard four figures—;37,000, 41,000, 56,000 and 83,000. It is like a raffle.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am terribly sorry, but the figure I have is 83,000.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, that is a propaganda figure.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord may say that it is a propaganda figure, but I am afraid that I shall stick to it for the moment and he will have to accept that.
There are over 83,000 retirement and widow pensioners in Canada who receive frozen pensions. Since 1959 the United Kingdom has had a social security agreement with Canada. It is limited in scope and does not cover the index linking of United Kingdom pensions payable there. The UK proposed a comprehensive agreement to include unfreezing in 1972, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said but the Canadian authorities were not then able to negotiate. Since then we have been unable to make progress because of the need to keep a tight rein on public expenditure. To increase all pensions in Canada to full UK rates would cost—and these are the figures I have—over £59 million a year at 1989 rates. If we paid future upratings only rather than increased pensions to the full unfrozen rate immediately, the first year costs would be almost £7 million, and we should reach, for practical purposes the £59 million cost to which I have already referred after 15 to 20 years.
It is true that during discussions between officials on a possible change to the agreement in 1987 Canadian officials said that their Government were prepared to spend some 8.5 million Canadian dollars on their pensioners in the UK. Under the current agreement a pensioner can be treated as having paid UK national insurance contributions for a period of Canadian residence and so get enhanced entitlement to UK pension.
Having received some advice, perhaps I can go back to the noble Lord's question on the figure of £83,000. Those figures are a computer count from the department's Newcastle computer and they show a 10 per cent. increase over the past 12 months. I hope that he will accept that figure.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I shall accept that figure if the noble Lord will accept the figure of £2 million for immediate uprating which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, gave us last year. The Minister gave us a figure of £7 million this evening.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that. I have not read the letter from my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. The figure I have is £7 million, and I shall have to stick to that.

1355
The cost of this enhancement could be considerably reduced, if not eliminated, depending on the precise terms of a renegotiated agreement. But the long-term emerging costs would certainly not be in the UK's favour. In 1955, when it first became policy to pay pensions abroad, inflation rates were very low and upratings were less frequent. Since then higher levels of inflation and an established pattern of upratings have brought considerable pressure for unfreezing—not just for pensioners in Canada. Two other Commonwealth countries which are affected in much the same way are Australia and New Zealand. We have reciprocal agreements with both of these countries but they also do not provide for the payment of pension increases.
I am sure noble Lords will accept that if we paid pension increases in Canada we should inevitably have to do so also in Australia and New Zealand, which would considerably increase the cost of such a change. To see the full picture we must therefore look at those two countries as well as Canada.
To unfreeze pensions completely in all three countries would cost about £209 million at 1989 rates, an increase of 42.5 per cent. on current expenditure on overseas pensions. To pay future cost of living increases only, ignoring past increases, would cost about £23 million in 1989–90, rising significantly each year until all pensioners in those countries were paid at full UK rates; so eventually reaching the 1989 cost of £209 million.
The only circumstances in which overseas pensions are not frozen are where we have a reciprocal agreement with a country to provide specifically for upratings to apply or where the pensioner is in the EC. I should add that we had such agreements with virtually all EC countries before our accession. Agreements were made primarily to protect the social security interests of people moving between the UK and any other country. The agreements we have with Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not provide for upratings, largely for historical reasons. The agreements were made long ago when inflation world-wide was low and upratings were comparatively infrequent so that at the time people saw no reason to incorporate provision for them in agreements. When the later agreements were negotiated costs were not the important factor that they later became.
Before moving on to more general issues, I refer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, about progress on the social security agreement with the Soviet Union. No negotiations have ever taken place on such an agreement. I know nothing about such an agreement and I do not know where the noble Lord heard about it. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, also said that the cost of pensions uprating should be offset by the saving to the National Health Service, which pensioners overseas do not make use of. Of course, it is possible to look at averages but one cannot speculate on what calls these people as individuals would have made on the NHS. Moreover many—indeed we know it is a majority, though we cannot produce figures—went abroad long before reaching pension age so that for many years they did not contribute to the health service's costs. What is more, the rate of pension a person gets is quite
1356
separate from any benefit he or she may or may not get from the NHS, which is paid for primarily from general taxation rather than from national insurance contributions.
What I have said so far is rather one-sided, in that I have explained what we do and do not do for our pensioners overseas. In view of the importance in this context of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I ought to say a few words about what they do for their pensioners who leave their countries. Canada and Australia pay pensions to people in the UK and they uprate them but they have other restrictions which reduce their expenditure in this field. Canada pays pensions in its own country to people who have lived there 10 years but will pay overseas, and uprate, only if the pensioner had at least 20 years' residence. We pay any pension overseas.
Australia allows its people to continue to draw pensions when they come here but does not allow people to claim pension for the first time while abroad no matter how long they may have lived and worked in Australia. We, by contrast, allow people to claim while abroad and there are, in fact, more pensions paid to such people than to people who have emigrated as pensioners. New Zealand simply does not pay pensions to people in the UK.
These facts demonstrate that matters are not straightforward and that there are factors working both ways. If ever the resources became available to permit us to unfreeze overseas pensions we should want to renegotiate our agreements with those countries so that pensioners gain in both directions and so that the home governments, including our own, bear the appropriate costs.
Social security is a very big spender—some £47.6 billion in 1988–89, of which retirement pensions accounted for about £19.5 billion. Included in this figure is almost half a billion pounds a year that we pay to almost 495,000 pensioners living overseas in some 175 countries; and of these about 298,000, or 60 per cent., have frozen pensions. It would cost £248 million a year to unfreeze these pensions completely, including £59 million for pensioners in Canada.
A major principle of government policy is to restrict public expenditure in order to free resources for investment, which in its turn produces wealth. We are seeing the fruits of this policy in the shape of economic growth and falling unemployment, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in the previous debate. We therefore cannot allow social security expenditure, already over 30 per cent., of all public expenditure, to expand indefinitely and, as a result, our policy has to be one of targeting the limited resources available to those most in need. In view of the inevitable consequences for those pensions payable in Australia and New Zealand I hope I have explained why we do not consider it appropriate to make available the considerable sum needed to unfreeze pensions payable in Canada.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he can answer two quick questions. He told us that to unfreeze pensions would cost £59 million. However, how much does it cost

1357
for British residents in the United States who already have their pensions unfrozen? Why can the Government afford one but not the other?
Secondly, the noble Lord has not answered my serious question about the rights of public service pensioners, including civil servants, MPs and members of the forces, to be entitled to uprating.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the first question concerning the United States, I explained that it was an historical anomaly. The agreement with America—I cannot remember the date—was at a different time. We accept that it is an historical anomaly. It would be expensive to now make a change for Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other countries. It would cost £250 million.
The second question put by the noble Baroness is rather complicated and I need to take advice. However, I promise to write to her.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to give the noble Lord some advice. I have in my hand a letter from his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, dated 26th July 1983, which states:
"Public service pensions generally, including those for civil servants and members of the forces, are regarded as occupational pensions and are payable with increases anywhere in the world".
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, but the noble Baroness was asking why that was the case. I said that I did not know why it was the case and that I would write to the noble Baroness. Is that not enough?
Baroness Jeger: No, my Lords.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should add that this is an Unstarred Question and it is normally in order that when the Minister sits down the debate ends.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before nine o'clock.

  STATE VETERINARY SERVICE
  STATE VETERINARY SERVICE
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM: US STAFF
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM: US STAFF
  POLICE MUTUAL AID ARRANGEMENTS
  POLICE MUTUAL AID ARRANGEMENTS
  KINGSTON PRISON: STAFFING
  KINGSTON PRISON: STAFFING
  PERSONAL VIOLENCE OFFENCES: STATISTICS
  PERSONAL VIOLENCE OFFENCES: STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LIFE SENTENCE STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LIFE SENTENCE STATISTICS