Sitting of 31 January 1989

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL
Lords amendments agreed to.
ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL
HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON)
WAVESCREEN BILL
INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL
ISLE OF WIGHT BILL

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday.

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
Read a Second time, and committed.

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Global Environment
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responsibility he has for United Kingdom participation in the United Nations environment programme-WBO intergovernmental panel on climate change, as the Minister responsible for basic and long-term strategic research into the global environment.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to improve the co-ordination of United Kingdom research into the global environment.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Extensive co-ordination of research in the broad area of the global environment already takes place, both domestically and internationally. The research councils are actively engaged and I understand that the Natural Environment Research Council is likely soon to join expert groups of the climate change panel under the United Nations environment programme, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment takes lead responsibility.
    Mr. Doran: International co-operation is obviously important, but will the Minister tell us what steps his Department takes to encourage co-operation between the various Departments that are responsible for the pollution that is so damaging to the atmosphere and what steps it is taking especially with the Department of Energy in encouraging the various projects necessary to reduce the levels of hydrocarbons that are burning in the power stations?
    Mr. Jackson: The implications of the different policies for the environment being pursued in different branches of Government are taken seriously by the Government as a whole and by those Departments. It is not, of course, a matter for the Department of Education and Science in the first instance.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that the co-ordination between various branches of Government on the environment is seen by many as absolutely chaotic? Will the Minister agree to look seriously at the approach taken in the United States, which brings together the relevant agencies to ensure that there is a productive channelling of effort to tackle these problems?
    Mr. Jackson: There are many ways in which one can organise research activities in an area as large and complex as that of the environment and environmental policy. One method will have advantages and disadvantages and another will have other strengths and weaknesses. We are dealing with large and complicated questions and one of the problems about having a single co-ordinating body, which might achieve the advantage of more focus, is that there is a disengagement of environmental research from other areas of research. All those matters are being

    149
    considered by the advisory committee on science and technology, and the Government look forward to receiving advice from that body in due course.
    Dr. Bray: But within the Secretary of State's own responsibilities, is there not a case for a joint directorate involving the research councils directly concerned—the Natural Environment Research Council, the Science and Engineering Research Council, the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council? Is the Minister aware that there seems to be strong support for such a move among all the research councils? Is he aware that the very importance of these activities and many unfortunate precedents enormously increase the scope for errors in the physical science, the politics and the policies that are actually implemented? Will he buck up his ideas?
    Mr. Jackson: I am always happy to try to buck up my ideas in line with the hon. Gentleman's urgings. There is a case for almost any combination of organisational structure in these matters. The case is being examined by the research councils and by ACOST. We look forward to their advice, which we shall consider very seriously.

    Teachers (London)
    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he proposes to help the new borough education authorities in London to overcome the problems of shortages of qualified teachers in London.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the need to ensure a sufficient supply of teachers in all local education authorities.
    Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister aware that one of the main problems in recruiting teachers in inner and outer London—particularly in my own borough of Brent—is the high cost of housing in Greater London? What steps do she and her colleagues intend to take to encourage schemes such as the scheme in my constituency which involves hostels and to encourage equity-sharing to ensure that London gets the teachers it deserves?
    Mrs. Rumbold: On the general point about teacher recruitment in London, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions to advise him on measures to tackle the high-cost housing areas, such as inner and outer London, and to consider the London weighting issue when it reports to him. A number of interesting ideas are coming forward from local authorities that have put together packages to retain and recruit teachers in areas where there are problems with housing.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: What steps does my hon. Friend's Department propose to take to overcome teacher shortages in the 1990s in key subjects, such as mathematics, physics and the others outlined in the Select Committee last week? Will she note that some local authorities in London are failing to recruit teachers through sheer ineptitude? In Ealing, 44 steps have to be gone through before a teacher can be recruited into a classroom, because the local authority is so obsessed with equal opportunities and similar procedures.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration at the bureaucratic nonsense that some education authorities impose on schools trying to recruit teachers in shortage subjects. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, and I hope that my right hon. Friend's proposal for licensed teachers will go some way to alleviate the problems faced by the teaching profession in that regard. My hon. Friend will be aware of the measures that the Department already has up and running for recruitment in shortage subjects. We are offering bursaries to graduates who enter and remain in shortage subjects—physics, mathematics, CDT and, as announced by my right hon. Friend only last Friday, chemistry—in an attempt to address some of the difficulties.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister aware that in my borough of Waltham Forest primary school vacancies are running at 10 per cent. of the teacher establishment? Many worried school governors are asking what the Government propose to do about it. There is a crisis in London and the Government are held to blame for not training enough teachers, for the housing problem, which means that teachers cannot afford housing, and for demoralisation in the teaching force. When can parents in my borough expect their children to have teachers?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The fault must lie more with Waltham Forest than in the recruitment of teachers. We have more student entries into primary teaching than we have had for a considerable number of years, so there cannot possibly be any shortage of primary school teachers, although Waltham Forest may well have difficulties in recruiting teachers because of its policies.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As a former education officer in an outer London borough who had responsibility for recruiting supply staff, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that the quickest way of recruiting more teachers in London and other areas where there are shortages is to allow the market to play a part, first, by introducing differential pay rates for London and other shortage areas as well as in shortage subjects?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who speaks from great experience. I notice the derision from Opposition Members whenever market forces are mentioned in this context. It is very much a matter of whether teachers fancy working in particular authorities because of the opprobium that attends those authorities or whether good teachers prefer to go to authorities which are more stable in their policies and their administration of education generally.

    School Places
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage local education authorities to reduce the number of surplus places in schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage local education authorities to reduce the number of surplus places in schools; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): Local education authorities are aware of the high cost of

    151
    underused capacity at schools with a substantial proportion of surplus places. It is, therefore, very much in their own financial interests to continue to come forward with proposals to rationalise their school provision where appropriate. The Government's public expenditure plans assume that authorities collectively will achieve the national targets for the removal of surplus places.
    Mr. Barnes: What extra help will be made available to local education authorities to deal with surplus capacity when their plans have been frustrated by opting-out procedures exacerbating surplus capacity in local education? In Staveley in my constituency, Staveley Netherthorpe school has opted out, thereby creating problems for two other schools in the area.
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the raison d'être behind the Education Reform Act. The driving force behind decisions on which schools will remain open and which will close will increasingly be parental choice through open enrolment. As for the substantive part of his question, we shall consider each section 12 proposal on its merits. In parallel and together, we shall consider grant-maintained status applications on their merits.
    Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Secretary of State's opinion that opting out should not be used as a lifeline by schools that face closure because of local authority proposals? Will he confirm that the majority of opting-out proposals so far have come from schools that face closure because of local authority reorganisation? How does that fit in with what he has just said about rationalisation and the proper use of resources?
    Mr. Butcher: We have said that opting out which will not be used as a bolt hole for schools that are not viable. We have said that many times, and we shall consider each application on its merit. However, there is increasing evidence, and it has been confirmed yet again, that municipal Socialism is a creature which turns vicious whenever its hold on its captive subjects is threatened. We believe in democracy and parental choice. The hon. Lady should look at the behaviour of certain Labour councils when parents try to exercise that democratic process.
    Mr. Pawsey: I note my hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that surplus places take up scarce resources, spending money on empty desks rather than on children? Despite what he has heard from Opposition Members, does he agree that grant-maintained schools represent a cost-effective way of educating children? They are invariably oversubscribed and give parents a valuable yardstick against which they may judge schools in LEAs.
    Mr. Butcher: This mini debate has shown yet again that the Labour party is about 15 years out of date. There are something like 620,000 primary places and some 800,000 secondary places surplus to capacity. That represents a cost in premises-related expenditure of something like £240 million a year. There is no incompatibility between grant-maintained schools and the need to tackle that problem.
    Mrs. Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that not all schools applying to opt out are, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggests, those due for closure? Heckmondwike grammar school in my constituency is certainly not due for closure; it is due, if the Labour party
    152
    gets its own way, to be changed considerably. However, the parents have decided that they do not wish to have those Labour party changes, so they will seek to opt out.
    Mr. Butcher: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has had to live alongside some of the worst aspects of that municipal Socialism to which I referred earlier. It is our policy to enhance parental choice, whether through grant-maintained schools or otherwise. We shall safeguard the interests of parents who wish, in a fair and free manner to exercise that choice if they recognise that their school is excellent and worth retaining.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Under-Secretary aware that he shows the same ignorance and ineptitude on this subject as he used to show at the Department of Trade and Industry? Is he aware that well over half the schools that have sought to opt out have been in Conservative-controlled areas? If, as he says, opting out is not a bolt hole for schools under threat of closure, why is the Secretary of State's front organisation, the Grant Maintained Schools Trust, actively encouraging any school under the threat of closure to seek to opt out? Do not he and the Secretary of State understand that their opting-out policy is completely paralysing any sensible rationalisation of school provision by local authorities? How can local authorities propose schools for closure when the effect of such a proposal may be that the Secretary of State says that that school shall remain open for ever and outside local education authority control so that the LEA then has to propose for closure schools that it would otherwise have kept open?
    Mr. Butcher: We shall be entirely fair and open-minded on grant-maintained status applications, whether they come from Conservative or Labour-controlled LEAs. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not believe in his own arguments and that is why he has had to play the man and not the ball.
    Mr. Batiste: When my hon. Friend is rightly encouraging LEAs to reduce surplus places, will he also make it clear to LEAs such as that in Leeds, which rules over a large and diverse area, that there is no reason for political dogma in imposing blanket solutions on diverse local communities, and, in particular, that the Government regard village schools as an important part of village life and rural communities?
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is saying what I have tried to confirm over the past few moments, which is that Conservative Members believe in pluralism while the Opposition believe in incorporatism.

    Schools (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional resources available to schools in Leicestershire to pay for defects and repairs that are deemed necessary; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Butcher: The Government's expenditure plans for 1989–90 provide for local authorities as a whole to spend £114 million, or approaching 30 per cent., more in cash on repairing and maintaining their school building stock than was actually spent in 1986–87. That is an increase of 9 per cent. in real terms. The Government distribute rate

    153
    support grant to local authorities on the basis of those expenditure plans. However, it is for each authority to decide how to spend the resources available to it.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that during the Christmas recess I conducted a survey of the 29 schools in my constituency and 24 of them were found to be in a state of serious disrepair? One was a fire hazard and three were in a dangerous condition. They have had to wait a total of 175 years for decoration and repair. Yesterday, the director of education informed me that it will cost £1 million to effect the repairs needed in my constituency alone. Does the Minister agree that it is a mark of a civilised society to give our children the best possible environment in which to learn and grow? In view of the information that I have kindly given him today, will he reconsider his answer and allocate more resources to the county council?
    Mr. Butcher: Leicestershire spends just below the national average on repairs and maintenance per capita in the primary sector and just above the national average per capita in the secondary sector. Overall, we have increased in real terms the allocations for repairs and maintenance, and, indeed, capital expenditure, but it is for LEAs to exercise their choice and mix the money that they receive in grant from the centre with capital receipts to tackle just the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.
    Mr. Ashby: Is the Minister aware that St. Clare's Roman Catholic school in Coalville in my constituency is an excellent school but that it is bursting at the seams? It requires not maintenance but an extension to provide further excellent education for the Roman Catholics in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend see that that money is available for that school?
    Mr. Butcher: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to make a decision on that school at this moment. If he wishes to make more detailed representations to me, I shall be glad to entertain him and, if need be, a delegation.

    Inner London Education Authority
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to monitor the impact of the transfer of education responsibilities from the Inner London education authority to inner London boroughs.
    Mrs. Rumbold: As a matter of course, the Government evaluate the effectiveness of the policies they introduce. The performance of the inner London councils as LEAs will be monitored through the collection of data on educational and financial performance, and through inspection by HMI.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that many people in inner London are concerned about what will happen when education is transferred to the boroughs? Is she further aware that the long-term predictions by her Department show that education spending in inner London will fall by 30 per cent. in real terms in the first five years of transfer to the boroughs? Will she reconsider those figures and enable proper expenditure on education to take place in inner London to take account of the problems of deprivation, the higher costs of providing education in the
    154
    area and, for example, the fact that 50 per cent. of the children in my borough fall within the special needs category? Those needs must be met by central Government. They cannot be met out of local resources.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman should remember that ILEA has overspent, and spent inefficiently, on London's education for years. The authority's abolition provides a new framework within which the boroughs can move to provide more efficient services. That certainly can be done and many outer London boroughs already manage it. The inner London boroughs will have the support of the safety net arrangements for four years from April 1990 and, following that, the new needs assessment will take into account the factors that the hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the commissars of the people's republic of Islington have said that when they are responsible for education in the area, it will be based on numeracy and literacy? Does she agree that if ILEA had adopted a similar approach, the case for abolition would have been much less strong? Will she also agree that the record of the London borough of Barnet—where a pupil is three times as likely to leave with two A-levels as in the ILEA—shows that the London boroughs are more than capable of looking after the children's education?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The short answer to those questions is yes.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister recall the words used by the Secretary of State when he praised the London boroughs for their efforts to deal with the administrative chaos that was likely to arise as a result of his proposals to abolish ILEA? Those words of praise having been given, will the Minister now guarantee that the London boroughs will be given the necessary resources to provide good-quality education? Or do the words she used in her main answer mean that she is determined to carry out a financial vendetta against the children of inner London and starve them and the boroughs of the resources that they desperately need to have good education and good opportunities?
    Mrs. Rumbold: There is absolutely no question of a vendetta against the children in the new inner London education authorities. From the draft development plans that are coming to the Department now and the discussions that are being held with the inner London boroughs, it is clear that the interests of the children are being taken care of. There will be safety netting with the introduction of education as one of the responsibilities of those boroughs and as that is phased out, a key determinant in the boroughs' financial position will be the new needs assessment.

    School Governors
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to review the effectiveness of legislation concerning the appointment of school governors.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The reform of governing bodies is a key element in our strategy for raising standards in schools. Our legislation has ensured that governing bodies are now much better balanced and more effective.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of the legislation was, among other things, to achieve a broad spectrum of representation on boards of governors? Is she aware, however, that the outcome appears to be a substantial preponderance of teaching profession representatives, who are also parents of pupils at the schools? In the light of the activities of the National Union of Teachers in encouraging its members to become governors wherever possible, does she agree that this could lead to a conflict of interests? Will she therefore keep the matter under close review and take whatever immediate action may be appropriate if it becomes apparent that the interests of pupils are not paramount?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Governors, especially parent governors, should be chosen for the values that they bring to the governing body as consumers, not because they have vested interests either politically or professionally in the management of schools. It remains for the parents at each school to decide which candidates to elect, having studied the curriculum vitae of those coming forward.
    Perhaps it would help my hon. Friend to know that we are making arrangements for a sample survey of schools to collect information about the number of candidates who have offered themselves for election as teacher and parent governors, the turn-out for elections, the number of candidates from different sectors such as the ethnic minorities, and the balance between the sexes. The survey will also look at the background of parent governors, especially to assist us in ascertaining the business representation of the co-opted governors. That will give us information about the occupational background of all governors.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the dire consequences of her Department's failure to legislate to prevent local authorities from appointing single party state slates of school governors? Has she seen the letter from two parent governors of Charlotte Sharman primary and nursery school, in my constituency, who have been unable to take in a governing body meeting with a quorum since its constitution in September because of the failure to attend of the three ILEA Labour members and the Southwark Labour member? Although opposition members have been willing to attend, and be nominated and co-opted, the two authorites in question have insisted that only their own people should be put forward to sit on school boards. Will there be legislation to deal with this, or shall we be able to amend the Housing and Local Government Bill to be introduced tomorrow?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have at times made our views very plain about the placing of political one-party governors on school boards. We deplore this activity in local authorities of whatever political control where it is blatant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We would much prefer the system that has always prevailed, whereby authorities allocate ward-by-ward representation on governing bodies. Where there is a balance on the local authority of, say, Labour and Conservative, or SLD representatives the ward
    156
    schools will have some representatives from those elected for those wards. I hope that that kind of best practice will continue.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the likely balance between arts subjects and other subjects for study in higher education during the next 10 years.
    Mr. Jackson: The balance of subjects will be determined largely by institutions and students. We believe that there should be a further shift towards science, engineering and vocational courses to provide the balance of skills that the economy needs. But this is entirely consistent with retaining high levels of scholarships in all the arts, humanities and social sciences.
    Mr. Thurnham: Would my hon. Friend encourage students who are nervous about top-up loans to choose to study useful subjects that are in demand so they can be confident about getting good jobs and have no trouble repaying their debts to society?
    Mr. Jackson: I would urge students to consider very carefully the courses that they undertake in the light of what they think is right for them and their future employment prospects. I certainly believe that the top-up loan proposals, which the Government have made and will introduce in due course, will help to encourage a greater sense of economic realism among students, which would be a desirable development.
    Mr. Rowlands: In trying to achieve his objective, will the hon. Gentleman attempt not to reduce the choice of arts subjects in schools? In particular, will he take note of and clarify the role of the Training Commission, which is still trying to impose a school curriculum in advance of the national curriculum agreed by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Jackson: This is not a matter particularly for me, but I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints of an attempt to squeeze out arts subjects. That is not happening.
    Mr. Rhodes James: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's emphasis on the need for a balance of subjects in the national interest. Does that mean that he and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reject the extraordinary proposals of the University Grants Committee to close the outstanding veterinary schools in Glasgow and in Cambridge?
    Mr. Jackson: As a result of the review committee, a proposal has been made to the University Grants Committee. The UGC, and the Universities Funding Council after 1 April, will have to consider it. It is a matter for them to consider in the first instance.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Further to his previous reply, what estimate has the Minister made of the effects of the top-up loan proposals on the balance of subjects? In particular, does he agree that medical students, by virtue of the length and nature of their courses, would be especially badly hit and could face outstanding debts of some £19,000 at the end of their courses? What study has he made of that and why does not the loans White Paper refer to medical students?
    Mr. Jackson: On behalf of the Treasury Bench I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his august responsibilities. Of course, the Government have considered the impact of top-up loans on student choice of subjects. The conclusion that we have reached is that the consequences are unpredictable. Certainly the scare stories that the hon. Gentleman may be about to launch bear no relation to the position in other countries that have loans schemes for their students on a scale considerably more demanding than the proposals that we are making.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Will it not be essential in the next decade for management education to be extended so that as many young women and men as possible go out into the world without feeling ignorant about the way in which business works?
    Mr. Jackson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government strongly support the development of management education and are very pleased at the progress being made. We hope that it will be faster.

    Teachers
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to increase the supply of teachers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have outlined my proposals for future teacher supply in a memorandum provided to the Select Committee on which the hon. Member sits. I also announced last Friday radical changes in teacher training to make entry into the teaching profession more flexible.
    Mr. Griffiths: The reason for the question is that the memorandum supplied to the Select Committee was pathetically inadequate. In a speech to the Society of Education Officers the Secretary of State said that he intended to keep in touch with teachers who leave the profession. As seven out of 10 do so within the first five years, how does the Secretary of State propose to keep in touch with them? Would not the best way of keeping them be to give them a salary and a status commensurate with the job that they do instead of rubbishing them as has been done for the past 10 years?
    Mr. Baker: About half the teachers who take up appointments each year—roughly 16,000—are former teachers returning to the profession. I was urging local authorities to keep in touch with teachers who leave—mainly women leaving to have families—so that they may attract them back. That is an important way of increasing the number of teachers. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the speech that I made on Friday I mentioned two other important initiatives. One is the concept of licensed teachers, to encourage mature people in their 30s and 40s to come into teaching. The other is a new method whereby a student, after graduating in another subject, would go straight into a school and be trained as a teacher on the job.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: In considering the supply of teachers will my right hon. Friend also pay attention to the movement of teachers from one authority to another? In particular, will he give thought to the significance of the fact that many teachers move from inner London and
    158
    from Brent to work in areas such as Gravesham? Will he bear in mind that although property prices are similar we do not have the benefit of inner London or any form of London weighting?
    Mr. Baker: The problem of housing costs in the employment of teachers has already been raised at Question Time, and as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said I have asked the interim advisory committee for its advice. Many authorities are now putting together separate and individual packages, often involving housing support, to attract teachers.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State realise that many young people who would make excellent teachers will not have the opportunity to go to college if the student loan system comes in? Does he appreciate that in Wales the proposal is entirely unacceptable, and will he give an assurance that if students and educationists appear to be reacting against the scheme it will be abandoned?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the proposal that I made last Friday, that someone who has graduated in another subject should in future be allowed to be employed by a local education authority immediately after his graduation without having to spend another year in college. I believe that that will be very attractive to many students—they will be trained as teachers on the job and will receive salaries while they are training.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend considered whether it will be possible to develop a viable scheme to harness the talents of people recently retired from industry to supplement the regular teaching force, particularly in the shortage subjects?
    Mr. Baker: The licensed teacher approach is intended to encourage people in their 30s and 40s who want a career change. It has been pioneered by several local authorities, and later this year we shall regularise it with new regulations. It provides an important input into teaching.
    Mr. Straw: Has the Secretary of State no idea of the scale of the teaching crisis over which he presides? Does he realise that three in 10 newly qualified teachers fail to go into teaching the next year, four in 10 new teachers leave the profession within five years and the measures that he announced last Friday are wholly inadequate to the task? Is he aware that good teachers will continue to leave in droves for better-paid jobs outside unless their pay is raised and their conditions improved, and the Secretary of State starts to provide leadership to raise the morale of the profession instead of continually undermining it?
    Mr. Baker: The year before last there was an increase of 3,000 in teacher training; last year there was an increase of 1,000. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have read the evidence that I submitted to the Select Committee, or my speech last Friday. I am not complacent, but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not defeatist either.

    Schools (Opting-out)
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present procedure for the balloting of parents on schools opting out of the control of local authorities.
    Mr. Baker: The Education Reform Act 1988 provides a framework for such ballots, and the Electoral Reform Society conducts them on behalf of the governing bodies. Secret postal ballots have been held among parents at 21 schools.
    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that a ballot to decide whether a school is to opt out should be free from all outside influences? Has the case involving the Small Heath school in Birmingham been brought to his notice? All kinds of shenanigans have been taking place, orchestrated largely by the local authority, one of whose chairmen has branded the head teacher a racist, and the local authority has spent £5,000 on presenting in newspapers the case for not opting out. Is it not time for a strict code for ballots of this nature?
    Mr. Baker: I am of course aware of the case of Small Heath school—two attempts in the courts to hold up the ballot have failed—and I deplore the campaigns of misinformation about grant-maintained school policy. I think that those involved in them will be the losers, because parents will be able to sort out fact from fiction. We shall look carefully at the procedures as I want to ensure that they are conducted in an open way that is fair to all parties.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the shenanigans to which his hon. Friend referred, and the mis-statements that he has just made about Mr. Justice Popplewell refusing to stop the ballot, are totally misleading? Last Friday in the High Court the judge granted an expedited judicial review of the case in view of the disgraceful fact that the head teacher had taken the children out of classes 40 minutes early, told them to go home and tell their parents to vote "yes" and distributed leaflets to which the parents objected. The judge clearly agreed that nothing could be more contemptible than to use school children as part of an election campaign.
    Mr. Baker: It is no good attacking the principle of grant-maintained schools, because it is on the statute book and it is a popular policy. Many parents in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—his electors and supporters—find it popular. They are fans of that policy. The right hon. Gentleman is behaving like Brian Clough and attacking the fans.

    Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to introduce a new system for the negotiation of teachers' pay and conditions.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Government hope to introduce new permanent machinery in time for the 1990 settlement.
    Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the vast majority in the teaching profession have reacted well to these radical reforms and are working the system. Will he give hope to teachers of good will who wish negotiating rights to be restored and say when he hopes to announce progress?
    Mr. Baker: I have set out the Government's proposals for a teachers' negotiating group and I have met the unions and the TUC. I expect to meet them again after Easter to
    160
    conduct further discussions. A wide range of views has so far been expressed and it may be difficult to reach agreement and unanimity on the matter.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister explain how Trident can possibly be a credible deterrent when the Prime Minister will not have control and command of the launching of the weapon, which will be left to the discretion of individual submarine commanders? Does she agree that it would have been better not to spend £9 billion updating Trident but to provide an effective command and control system for Polaris?
    The Prime Minister: A nuclear deterrent has kept the peace for 40 years. History has shown that conventional weapons could not and did not keep the peace. We should be most rash to discard a weapon that has kept the peace until something better is found, and I see no such prospect at present.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that statements made by Mr. Viraj Mendis since he returned to his real homeland confirm how right the Home Secretary was to deport him? Does that not mean that many Opposition Members have egg on their faces?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right. He allowed every chance for an appeal and then took what has turned out to be precisely the right action.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious concern in Northern Ireland relating to the conviction for murder of four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Is she further aware that it has come to light that significant evidence was not taken into account during the trial and appeal? Will the Prime Minister study the article in last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph and seek the advice of her Law Officers on the matter?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter he knows that the right channels are my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that traditionally it has always been agreed that a certain confidentiality needs to be maintained in the workings of Government? Will she take this opportunity roundly to

    161
    condemn the grossly irresponsible behaviour of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in receiving stolen documents and thereby aiding and abetting a criminal offence?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that it is absolutely vital that confidentiality should be maintained. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I should point out that when the Labour party was last in power that was the view taken by the then Labour Prime Minister, and he was supported by the then Leader of the Opposition. It appears that the Labour party is so bankrupt of argument that it has appointed an official receiver.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the last Member of Parliament responsible for a major leak was given a knighthood and made a European Commissioner?
    The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question was about receiving—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to reply.
    The Prime Minister: —documents that can only have been stolen. We on this side of the House resent deeply the strictures on my distinguished right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Colvin rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the people of Gibraltar on the progress that they have made towards economic self-sufficiency? Will she confirm that the decision to redeploy some of our troops elsewhere in no way weakens our guarantee to the people of Gibraltar that the colony will remain British so long as the people there desire it?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The reduction of our forces in Gibraltar does not affect at all our commitment to Gibraltar, which is enshrined in the preamble to the 1969 constitution, which says that we will not alter the status of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the right hon. Lady accept yesterday's verdict by the House of Lords, when it passed an amendment enabling shareholders to block the funding of political parties? Will she prevent members of her party from defeating that amendment in this House? In view of the syphoning off of company funds through British United Industrialists, will she ensure that that amendment stays in place?
    The Prime Minister: We shall naturally consider the views expressed. I refer the hon. Gentleman to those of my right hon. Friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I believe had it absolutely right.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole House should welcome the visit in April of President Gorbachev, which underscores yet again the importance
    162
    of the British role in delicate negotiations? Notwithstanding the Warsaw Pact's attempts to exaggerate the western statistics and to understate its own, the pace of world disarmament and arms reduction talks continues without hesitation.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we are glad that the visit has been reinstated after it had to be postponed for reasons which we fully understood. We hope that disarmament talks will continue. With regard to recent statements, I believe that it is far better for disarmament talks to take place at the negotiating table rather than through speeches, when it is very difficult to agree precisely what the figures are, bearing in mind that for 15 years in Vienna we were not able to get precise figures.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Reid: This afternoon every potential patient in Britain, including children, will have a price tag put on their heads. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state unequivocally that there is only one appropriate treatment for a chronically sick child—the best available treatment, not the cheapest?
    The Prime Minister: It is purely because we believe that that matters very much indeed that we have increased the resources available for the entire Health Service from £8 billion to £24 billion and increased the pay of a nursing sister from what it would have been under Labour or if we had increased it by inflation, from just £7,000 to nearly £13,000 a year.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Department of Transport is assessing the true cost to the nation of investment in road versus rail, all the costs should be taken into account? Would she agree with me that, for example, the amount of time that the police force spends on administering the law and dealing with endless problems in the courts and in administration is a major cost to the taxpayer? Will she therefore instruct the Department of Transport that from now on these and other appropriate costs must be taken into account when the various comparative costs are assessed?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I agree that all relevant costs should be taken into account, but very many more people and goods go by road than go by rail. My hon. Friend may wish that many more would go by rail, and indeed we are trying to improve the rail service so that that is so. But I accept that all relevant costs should be taken into account, although we may not agree on precisely what the relevant costs are.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Grant: Is the Prime Minister aware that the United Nations secretary-general has been compelled by the five permanent members of the Security Council, including Britain, to propose a reduction in the number of United Nations troops in Namibia from 7,500 to 4,650 during the transition to independence? Has she heard the views of

    163
    President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who has stated that the five permanent members of the Security Council have been fiddling with the moralities of resolution 435? As she will shortly be visiting Zimbabwe and as South Africa continues to support armed bandits and assassination gangs, will she review Britain's position in this matter and insist that the original numbers of troops be maintained?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wish to uphold a decision of the five permanent members of the Security Council. We shall honour it. The agreement was an excellent one and was obtained by the co-operation of those five members plus the co-operation of South Africa and Angola. I believe that we should do everything in our power to see that it is fulfilled. As far as this country is concerned, we pay our full subscription to United Nations peace-maintaining forces everywhere.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent Israeli raids on Palestinian camps in the Lebanon dogs with explosives tied to their bodies were used and that those dogs and their explosive charges were set off, resulting in the death of the dogs and of many Palestinians? Will she make representations to the Israeli Government deploring this practice?
    The Prime Minister: I am not responsible in any way for what happened there. I have heard of no such incidents as those to which my hon. Friend refers. The first thing to do is to find the facts.
    Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is because she cannot bring herself to use the National Health Service that she does not understand the NHS and that the National Health Service is not safe in her hands because there is no place in her heart for it? Will she stop poisoning the moral and ethical basis of the National Health Service and the whole sense of vocation that doctors and nurses in that service have?
    The Prime Minister: I could have expected that the right hon. Gentleman might take a totally different view, one
    164
    taken by many people far to the left of him—[Interruption.]— who believe that those who can afford to pay for themselves should not take beds from others.
    Mr. Cash: Irrespective of the fate of the Protection of Privacy Bill last Friday, is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter commands a great deal of public concern not only in this House but in the country at large, that it is a matter that the press itself must put right, and that if it does not do so the House will have to do so?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that last Friday's Bill was very well debated, and I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that a similar measure will be debated either this coming Friday or the Friday after that. I am sure that the observations that were made will have been noted in the relevant quarters.
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Prime Minister take time out of her busy day to examine her shoes and, in so doing, will she reflect on the current state of the British footwear industry, which in the last 10 years of her reign has shown a dramatic increase in imports, resulting in many British firms being closed and employees being put on the dole, including Percival's in Leicester? Bearing in mind that there is a penetration rate of 75 per cent. in terms of imports of ladies footwear, will she confirm that she supports the British footwear industry and is wearing shoes manufactured in Britain? Will she also outline her plans for protecting the industry against unfair competition?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, the footwear industry is doing far better than it was a few years ago, because its designs are very much better, its prices are highly competitive, and right now, if the hon. Gentleman could see, I am wearing shoes from Marks and Spencer.

NHS Review
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I would, with permission, like to make a statement about the National Health Service review. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a statement for which the House has been waiting.
Mr. Clarke: Britain enjoys high and rising levels of health care and, at its best, our Health Service is as good as any in the world. I believe that the principles underlying the National Health Service still hold good today and will continue to guide it into the next century. The NHS is—and must remain—open to all, regardless of income, and financed mainly out of general taxation. If those principles remain unchanged, the Health Service itself, and the society in which it operates, are changing for the better.
We need constantly to improve and strengthen the NHS so that it can provide ever better care to those who rely on it. At the moment there are wide variations in performance across the country. We want to maintain the best of the Health Service, and bring the rest of it up to that very high standard. That is why the Government set out upon a fundamental review of the NHS last year. We have today published our conclusions in the White Paper entitled "Working for Patients". They build on and evolve from the improvements that the Government have already made to the service in the last 10 years. They reflect a change of pace rather than any fundamental change of direction.
All our proposals share a common purpose—to make the Health Service a place where patients come first and where decisions are increasingly taken at a local level by those most directly involved in delivering and managing care.
The main proposals apply to all the United Kingdom, but there are separate chapters in the White Paper devoted to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland explaining how they will be applied in those countries. Implementation of the proposals will have to follow a process of discussion with many people in the service. We will be issuing in the course of the next week or two eight detailed—[Interruption.]
Mr. Dennis Skinner Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat. [Interruption.]
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you able to tell us what documents are being distributed to Conservative Members and why they are not being made available to Members on this side of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I know nothing of documents, other than the one which has just been handed to me.
Mr. Clarke: If I may help the House, I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends are reading documents that were placed in the Vote Office as I rose to make my statement. My right hon. and hon. Friends prefer to look at those sources for their information, not at information that comes to them in plain brown sealed envelopes. [Interruption.]
Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No documents are available in the Vote Office. If Conservative Members have such documents, they have been given to them by Government sources. We have not got them. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can now help the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). It appears that those documents are available in the Vote Office, because some hon. Members are now coming into the Chamber with them.
Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. They are not the documents that Conservative Members have.
Mr. Clarke: I hope that the House will allow me to return to the proposals, instead of being obsessed with documents that accompany what we say.
In order to help the process of discussion with the many interested parties whom I have just described, we shall be issuing in the course of the next week or two eight further detailed working papers as the basis for those discussions.
Before I turn to the key proposals on management and the use of resources contained in the White Paper, I want to describe the kind of hospital service that I believe every patient has a right to expect. All hospitals should provide individual appointment times that can be relied upon. They should offer attractive waiting areas, with proper facilities for patients and children. They should be able to provide proper counselling to those who need it and give clear and sensitive explanations of what is going on. In addition, patients should be able to pay for a number of optional extras, such as wider choice of meals, a bedside telephone, a television, or a single room. The best hospitals already provide this, and I want to see the whole service treating patients properly as people.
We will also ensure that patients are freer to choose and change their GP; and we shall give more encouragement to those GPs who, by offering the kind of service that people want, succeed in attracting more patients. To achieve that, we are proposing to increase the proportion of GPs' pay which comes from the number of patients on their lists, from 46 per cent. to at least 60 per cent.
People look to their general practitioners to prescribe the medicines they need, and GPs must have the necessary flexibility to do so. But at present, drug costs in some places are nearly twice as high per head of population as in others, even where the incidence of illness is much the same. The drugs bill is the largest single element of all spending on the family practitioner services. At £1·9 billion in 1987–88, it was more than the cost of the doctors who wrote the prescriptions. In each of the last five years, spending has risen by an average of 4 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation.
Unnecessarily expensive prescribing is wasteful and takes up resources that should be used in other ways. Over-prescribing is not in the best interests of patients. We shall therefore introduce a new budgeting scheme whereby GP practices will receive indicative budgets for their prescribing costs. The scheme will be operated in a way that ensures downward pressure on the cost of prescribing without inhibiting the ability of doctors to provide necessary medicines for their patients.
At present, because of the way that hospitals are funded, GPs are not always able to offer their patients a full choice as to where they will be treated. We want to

167
change this by giving GPs in large practices the opportunity to hold their own NHS budgets. They will be able to use these to purchase as they judge best certain types of hospital services for their patients. They will, in other words, be able to provide the hospitals they choose for their patients with the NHS funds required to finance the services the hospitals perform. These GP practice budgets will cover in-patients, out-patients and day care treatments, such as hip replacements and cataract removals. They will also cover prescribing costs and diagnostic tests, such as X-rays and pathology tests.
Large practices will be free to decide whether to join the scheme. It will, at first, only be open to practices with at least 11,000 patients—that is, twice the national average. Over 1,000 United Kingdom practices could join, covering about one in four of the population. All those practices could have their own NHS budgets of about£500,000 a year. Giving GPs the resources to finance services for their own patients will provide a real incentive to hospitals to improve the service they offer to those GPs. It will also enable GPs to provide a better service to patients by referring them, for example, to where waiting lists are shortest. I am quite sure that GPs will want to judge the quality of service at least as much as the cost of service when they decide where to refer their patients. We have important proposals on the quality of medical service to which I shall turn in due course.
But it will not just be through GP practice budgets that money will follow the patient to where work is done best. The principle will in future apply throughout the Health Service as a whole. As part of this new way of getting resources to hospitals, the present elaborate system which we all know as the RAWP system will come to an end. Over the past 12 years it has made an important contribution by helping to equalise the resources available to each region, but that task has now very largely been achieved. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes.
Mr. Graham Allen: Not in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's district. It is losing £8 million this year. The Secretary of State is changing the rules.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to hon. Gentlemen who are making comments from a sedentary position that they do not improve their chances of being called to ask questions later.
Mr. Clarke: Over the past 12 years, the RAWP system has made the contribution that I have described, but we are now in a position to replace it with an altogether more simple and fair system based on population numbers weighted for age and health, and the relative costs of providing services. The new method will be much quicker to compensate those regions which treat large numbers of patients from elsewhere in the country. We will move to a system that finances regions and districts on exactly the same system, with a 3 per cent. addition for the Thames regions because of the inescapable extra problems of providing health care in the capital.
In future, the money required to treat patients will be able to cross administrative boundaries much more freely, so that those hospitals that best meet patients' needs get the funds to do so. All NHS hospitals will be able to offer their services to different health authorities and the private sector. All district health authorities will be able to provide finance for health services to whatever hospitals they
168
choose, in other districts or in their own. As a result, we shall not in future have the frustrating situation that occasionally arises now, whereby a good, efficient hospital that attracts more patients runs out of money and has to slow down its work or close wards. This new system will start in 1990 for regional health authorities and 1991 for districts.
But improving the hospital service is not just a matter of changing the way in which hospitals receive their funds. We also want to change the way in which they are run and managed. We want all hospitals to have more responsibility for their own affairs, so that they can make the most of local commitment, energy and skills, and can get on with what they are best at, which is providing care.
Management can be strengthened throughout the whole Health Service. The better the management the better the care it can deliver. Financial Zaccountability and value for money will be improved by transferring audit of the health authorities and other NHS bodies to the independent Audit Commission. The role of the National Audit Office will not be affected by this change. On management matters, it is nonsense that the Ministers of any Government should be directly involved in the detail of the day-to-day running of the whole NHS. We shall therefore set up a new NHS management executive, chaired by the new chief executive, Mr. Duncan Nichol, and responsible for all its operational decisions. It will be accountable to an NHS policy board chaired by the Secretary of State for Health who will determine policy and strategy for the Service.
The prime responsibility of health authorities will be to ensure that the population for which they are answerable has access to a full range of high quality, good value services. Their job will be to judge the quality of services, to choose the best mix of services for their resident population and to finance those services. They will no longer provide and run all their local services, which will be increasingly the role of the hospital and unit managers themselves. Authorities will need to be organised as more effective decision making and managerial bodies. We shall therefore be changing their composition to make them smaller and to include executive as well as non-executive members. The non-executive members will be appointed on the basis of the personal skills and expertise they can bring to the authority and not as representatives of interest groups.
Although there will no doubt continue to be people who will combine being members of local health authorities with being local councillors, local authorities will lose their present right to appoint direct their own members to health authorities. At the same time, we shall also be strengthening the management of family practitioner committees along similar lines. We shall also make the FPCs accountable for the first time to regional health authorities to improve the links between planning for the hospital, community and family practitioner services.
We must devolve responsibility across the whole Health Service, but I believe that we can also go one stage further. The next logical step in the process of extending local responsibility is to allow individual hospitals to become self-governing. Let me make it absolutely clear that they will still be as much within the NHS as they are now. They will be no freer to leave the NHS than they are now. They will be no freer to leave the NHS than any unit has been throughout its 40-year history. They will, however, have

169
far more freedom to take their own decisions on the matters that affect them most, without detailed supervision by district, region and my Department. To be known as NHS hospital trusts, they will be free to negotiate with their own staff on rates of pay and, within limits, to borrow money. They will be able to offer agreed services for agreed resources throughout the NHS and, indeed, in the private sector, too. There will of course be safeguards to ensure that essential local services continue to be delivered locally. I believe that this new development will give patients more choice, produce a better quality service, build on the sense of pride in local hospitals, and encourage other hospitals to do even better in order to compete. I expect the first NHS hospital trusts to be set up in April 1991.
In all these reforms we intend to concentrate on the quality of care just as much as the quantity and cost. I admire the progress that the medical profession is making in devising systems that doctors call "medical audit" to assess clinical performance and outcomes. We intend to work with the profession to ensure that good systems of medical audit are put in place in every hospital and GP practice as soon as is practicable. What matters for all patients is that high standards of medical performance are maintained, and where possible improved, and such systems should secure that.
I turn finally to the matter of perhaps greatest public concern—waiting times. All the measures that I have so far outlined by making resources flow more directly to those parts of the service that deliver the best care, will help to cut the length of time that people sometimes have to wait for elective surgery. The waiting list initiative will continue, but we shall also introduce a number of other initiatives designed to have a more direct and immediate impact. First, we intend all GP practices to have the basic information systems they need to know where treatment is available quickest. Secondly, we shall introduce a new tax relief to make it easier for people aged 60 and over to make private provision for their health care. This will reduce the pressure on the NHS from the very age group most likely to require elective surgery, freeing resources for those who need it most.
Thirdly, we shall manage consultants' contracts more effectively so that the very best use is made of their time and expertise. We shall also reform the consultants' distinction award system to ensure that commitment to the service and involvement with the management of the NHS are included among the criteria for distinction awards. Fourthly, we shall increase the number of consultants by 100 over the next three years, over and above the increase in the number of consultants already planned. These additional consultants will be appointed in those specialties and in those districts in which waiting times are most worrying. Finance will be made available to cover the costs of the new appointments, and the supporting services for their work load. This will help us keep up the attack not only on waiting times, but on long hours worked by junior doctors.
Taken together, these proposals add up to the most formidable programme of reform in the history of the NHS. They are the latest step in our drive to build a stronger, more modern, more efficient Health Service. An NHS that is run better will be an NHS that can care better.
170
The proposals will, of course, mean change, but change of the kind we need if we are to have a service that is fit for the future. I trust that all those who—like me—truly believe in a Health Service that offers high quality care to all our people will lend their support to these reforms, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Government set out on their review last winter, not, as the Secretary of State claimed, because they wanted to maintain the best in the NHS, but because the NHS was in a cash crisis. The rest of us thought that the crisis was that the NHS had too little cash. It is now evident that the authors of the White Paper always thought that the cash crisis was that the NHS cost too much. It is the prescription for a Health Service run by accountants for civil servants, written by people who will always put a healthy balance sheet before healthy patients.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many more bureaucrats the NHS will need to make this package work? Will he tell us how much time doctors will have to take off patient care to file their financial returns? Will he tell us how much more the monitoring, the pricing and the bargaining over every treatment will add to the cost of administration, and whether a single closed ward will reopen as a result of the White Paper?
The Secretary of State assures us that it has never entered his head to privatise the NHS. Will he confirm that his White Paper proposes that medical services will now go the way of ancillary services and be put out to competitive tendering? If he wants to reassure the House, will he tell us which medical lines he is not prepared to privatise?
The Secretary of State assures us that those hospitals that opt out of their local health authorities somehow will not have opted out of the Health Service. Will he confirm that they will trade on their own account, that they will charge for every treatment, that they will retain their profits and that in every important respect they will be identical to the private hospitals with which they are to compete. Is he aware that the nation will not be taken in again by the Government's trick of sizing up public assets for private sale under the pretence of greater economic efficiency?
The White Paper's only feeble pretence at consultation is that a proposal to opt out will be given "adequate publicity locally". I assure the Secretary of State that we will save him that trouble. We will ensure that every proposal to opt out is fully exposed for what it is—a staging post to opt in to the private sector. To enable us to get started now, does the Secretary of State have the courage to name those hospitals that he expects to opt out first in two years' time?
The Secretary of State claimed that his proposals for private practice give GPs more freedom. Is not the truth that they limit the freedom of GPs to decide what treatment their patients need and replace it with the freedom to decide what treatment they can afford? Under his scheme, every patient has a price tag. Does not the Secretary of State realise that, for the first time, GPs will have an incentive to turn away those patients with a high price tag? The elderly, the disabled and the chronically sick will now be told, "Sorry, but you do not fit the business logic of this practice."
The Secretary of State was good enough to tell us that he believed that some GPs prescribe too much. Will he be good enough to tell the House which patients, in his medical opinion, get too many prescriptions and which

171
patients will get fewer prescriptions under his scheme? He had the brass neck to claim that the White Paper will increase patients' choice. Why does he not admit that his scheme means that patients will go not to the hospitals that they want to go to, but to the hospitals where their GP has the cheapest bargain? That is not money following the patients; it is patients following the money.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that the Prime Minister has had her way, and there is to be a subsidy out of taxation for private medicine. Will he confirm that in the whole White Paper that fatuous irrelevance is the only proposal for help for the medical care of the elderly? Does that not speak volumes for the Government's priorities? There is to be no relief for hard-pressed geriatric wards, but a new subsidy for private hospitals.
Why did not the Secretary of State take this opportunity to respond to the Griffiths report on community care which he has had for almost a year? Is it to be ignored again because the private sector cannot turn a fast buck out of the community care of the handicapped and the elderly?
The White Paper is the product of a review behind closed doors by closed minds. Junior ministers, we read, were consulted over dinner at No. 10. Junior doctors were not consulted. Nurses were not consulted. Patients were not consulted. The result is a series of proposals that will be as unworkable as they will be unpopular.
Now the nation has a chance to join in the debate. In that debate, we shall take every opportunity to hammer home the fact that the White Paper proves that the change that the NHS needs more than any other is a change of Government.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman started with some extraordinary comments about the amount of cash that was accompanying the review and seemed to imply that there was none. He talked about the time that has elapsed since the review was first announced. During that time, over £2,000 million has been added to NHS budgets in the public spending round and nearly £1,000 million has been added to finance the nurses' regrading exercise. Next year we are contemplating spending a total of £20,000 million.
The Labour party has no proposals for health at the moment, except some half-baked proposal for an inspectorate put forward in one of its documents. If its policy remains that nothing needs to be changed but that somehow it would add more money to what we put in, I shall regard such an approach to health care as pathetic and quite inadequate to meet the demands facing the service, which needs money and new ideas, both of which it is getting from the Government.
The hon. Gentleman treats in a most derisive way what he refers to as the accountancy and financing aspects, about which he asked me various questions. Again, I find that astonishing. If the hon. Gentleman shares my belief that there is no reason why the public service should not be run with the same efficiency and consumer consciousness as the private sector—[Interruption.]—he cannot dismiss the value of modern management disciplines, financial accountability and consumer consciousness that we are seeking to build into the Health Service. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has been asked a series of questions. The hon. Member for
172
Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) stands very little chance of being called to put a question if he continues to behave as he is doing.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Livingston asked about what he describes as the proposal for hospitals to opt out of district health authority care. I repeat that there is no question, and there never has been, of those hospitals leaving the NHS. The only person who has ever suggested that is the hon. Gentleman, when he purported to be describing documents which at that stage he would not read out to the public to whom he was talking. That ridiculous argument can be set aside.
I have described self-governing hospitals as being free of the constraints of detailed control from district and regional authorities and central Government which hospitals are presently under. The hon. Gentleman obviously prefers a service in which everybody is answerable to a bureaucratic district health authority, and he does not like proposals to give greater freedom to those with responsibility for care nearer to the patient.
The hon. Gentleman talks about practice budgets which we will offer—again a detail that he left out before today—to those large general practices which want to take them because they see their attractions to themselves and their patients.
It is ludicrous to describe this as inhibiting the ability of the GP and the GP's patients to have choice in the service. The reverse will be the case. At present, if a GP tries to send his or her patients to a hospital to which they have not previously been committed, the effect is to pose a financial problem for the hospital because no funds come with the patients. We are providing for NHS money to move with the patients, with the patients' choice, and to be available to those general practices which have the ability to manage it.
Doctors seeking to increase their number of patients will, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, have just as much, if not more, regard for the quality of care which a hospital might provide to the patients and not just to the costs. Indeed, what we are suggesting gives greater incentives to enhance quality.
On prescription costs, the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to attack what we are proposing to exercise downward pressure on prescription costs. I have read some of the Labour party's published documents, including the party's so-called green paper—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering the question. I am using the hon. Gentleman's own words to answer his criticism of what we are saying about prescribing costs. The hon. Gentleman said in that green paper:
"It is not immediately apparent that the current high level of drug consumption is a considered measure of the need for medical treatment. Inappropriate prescription does not merely result in ineffective expense but, more seriously, can adversely affect patient care."
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Why does he not make proposals to deal with it and why does he attack the proposals that we have announced today dealing with the self-same problem?
The tax relief proposals will assist many elderly patients who pay for private practice throughout their lives and find the costs increase when they reach the stage of their lives when they most need elective surgery. In so far as we support those people who provide for their own elective surgery, it will reduce the pressure on the rest of the service

173
and help other elderly patients who will be able to get quicker waiting times and more access to the services of the NHS.
We look forward to the debate. We will be consulting. We have a policy which will be followed up by working papers and detailed discussions in the next few months with everybody interested in the subject to work up the implementation of these proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a better contribution to that debate than he and his party have made so far—[Interruption.] The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that, even when he gets accurate leaks, he does not bother to read them and he does not bother to interpret them correctly or understand them. He now has the real White Paper and will find that we are miles ahead of him and his party in suggesting improvements for a stronger NHS for the future.
Dame Jill Knight: Anyone who has listened properly to my right hon. and learned Friend's comments this afternoon will be well aware that the National Health Service has a strong future and that the prime objective of the review is to improve patient services. So let us get away from the claptrap of the Opposition and talk about facts.
I invite my right hon. and learned Friend to comment further on the phrase "the money will follow the patients", as some doctors may feel that unless the money precedes the patients, the treatment may not be there to fund it and the effect on waiting lists will not be seen. Will he assure us that the present monumental waste and extravagance of the way in which alleged misdemeanours by hospital consultants are dealt with will be ended by the proposals in the review?
Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, these proposals look to the future of the NHS, whereas the Labour party is accustomed to looking to the past of the Service. Our proposals are marked, above all else, by our concern to concentrate our efforts on patient care and introduce changes that benefit patients.
I talk about money following the patient, and my hon. Friend's correction is good. One is talking about the time when the right mix of services is being planned by a district health authority for the patients in that district; then it will make provision in advance for the necessary finance to provide the services, as will the GPs operating their own practice budgets.
What I mean by the phrase is that judgments will first be made about the quality of the service that can be provided in different places, about the satisfaction that patients will get from it, about the waiting times that they may encounter before their treatment, and then the budgets will ensure that the money goes to those parts of the service where the treatment is given best.
That is not the case at present. Some hospitals find that if they work too hard they run out of money. Hospitals that do not work hard or efficiently are quite well provided with finance because the formula gives them all that they require and they appear to be free of problems. That is not in the interests of the patients, and we want to encourage good performance.
As for the disciplining of those few consultants who get into difficulties with their authorities in the management of
174
their contracts, we shall be strengthening the management of consultants' contracts and district health authorities will be acting as the agents for the regional health authorities in drawing up new job descriptions for consultants about the work they do.
We have a long-standing problem about the discipline of recalcitrant consultants. I am glad to say that we have reached some agreement with the representatives of the profession and, following a recent working party report, we intend to introduce proposals which will have some simpler local methods of dealing with minor problems and will speed up the present appalling process whereby serious disciplinary matters are handled in the service.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that in the long run the most significant statement he has made this afternoon concerns the tax funding of private health care for pensioners? Is he aware that, now that that principle has been established, it will be ever more difficult to prevent the concession being extended to other groups, and that once that stampede is on it will become impossible for him to maintain a line about the necessary funding for a common health service? Is that not why—for all those reasons—he opposed that reform right up to last Thursday's Cabinet meeting?
When considering reactions to his proposals, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, while it is important to listen to doctors, nurses and ancillary workers, the views of the customers—the patients—are crucial? If he accepts that form of political consumerism, will he monitor his proposed reforms and report to the House on whether the customer services have improved or have been cut as a result of today's package?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman makes a curious choice. As I am aware of his interest in the NHS and his openness at least to new ideas and methods which might improve the flow of services to patients, I take it as a welcome sign that he asked not a solitary question about the NHS parts of the proposals and queried only the tax relief to the private sector.
I do not see the analogy between our tax relief proposal and other claims for tax relief with which over the years we have all become familiar. The Government have rejected the case for general tax relief for contributions to private health care. But the situation of those over the age of 60 is plainly different from that of analogous claims that are made elsewhere. People who have been insured throughout their lives find that the premiums rise steadily at the very time when they want to make most demands on the service for which they have been paying. It is also a clear example where the tax relief to those who will continue, out of their own pockets, to contribute towards their care will be of obvious and direct benefit to every patient in the NHS by relieving the pressures on elective surgery.
I do not believe that this proposal, once implemented, will ever be repealed by the Labour party—or I look forward to seeing how it will ever argue for the withdrawal of this help for elderly people paying for their private health care.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the monitoring of the reforms, we shall begin by having detailed discussions on their implementation. There are huge details to discuss—on matters such as GP practice budgets, self-governing hospitals and drug budgets. But in

175
all that we do we shall, of course, listen particularly to the views of the public and the patients. In dealing with the big management and financial issues, we shall not forget—the point I made at the outset—the interests of patients who do not want to be kept hanging around waiting, who want to know what is going on and who want a patient and friendly service from the hospital. They and their GPs will have greater ability to choose that between various hospitals as a result of what we are proposing today.
Sir David Price: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his proposals to decentralise decision-making within the hospital service will be dependent on two factors? The first is an increase in the quality of medical audit and of real costing, and the second is a major improvement in the quality of middle and senior managers.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is perceptive, and what he says is undoubtedly the case. This will require a huge improvement in the financial information that is available within the service. It is astonishing that a service that consumes £26 billion is at present so devoid of basic information about the use of resources, about comparative costs and so on. That will be acquired.
It will also need the people necessary to carry it out and have the ability to make proper use of these systems; and by "people" I mean the consultants and medical staff, who must be just as involved and have just as leading a role in organising all this properly as their management colleagues with whom they will work.
Mr. Archie Kirkwood: Extra resources are of course needed in the NHS, but is the Secretary of State aware that these proposals could inflict potentially great damage on the fundamental principles of the NHS in future? Does he not accept that leaving health care to the vagaries of competition in the free market is a very unsafe way to proceed when delivering health care? In relation to primary health care, how is he going to protect the income of rural general practitioners' services? In particular, what incentives will GPs have to look after the elderly and infirm?
With regard to hospitals, is the principle of RAWP being abandoned? Some of the discrepancies between regions have disappeared, but there are still major discrepancies between health districts up and down the country. Can the Secretary of State also say whether the patients' travel costs, which he calls administrative boundaries, will be refunded?
Returning to the question raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about tax relief for the elderly, is he aware that the Daily Telegraph of 16 January, so far from saying that no precedents are being established, said that the same scheme could apply in logic to the cost of private schooling? What does the Secretary of State say to that?
Mr. Clarke: First, I urge the hon. Gentleman to study closely what I accept is an extremely detailed and complicated document, with a great sweeping reform. I think that then he will see that the principles of the Service are in no way threatened, as he clams, and that there is no prospect of any patient dropping through the system without essential care or essential medicine, or anything else.
176
I agree that we shall have to look at the problems that might otherwise be caused for rural general practitioners if we increased the percentage of remuneration that comes from capitation. The document therefore also canvasses our other proposal, to vary the level of the so-called basic practice allowance in different parts of the country. A higher basic practice allowance will, in my opinion, be required in scattered rural areas such as that represented by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and in the constituencies of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
With regard to the treatment of the elderly and infirm, no doubt the hon. Gentleman has in mind the prospect of some large practices going in for a practice budget. It has been suggested, I see, that somehow they will have some incentive not to take on the elderly or infirm patients. Like many other things that I have heard discussed in the past few days, we had thought of that over the past few months, and we have long ago covered the problem.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Answer the question.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will have to study this reform, and the working papers that are coming forward. I will answer the question now. In putting together a general practice budget, one must have regard to the number of patients, the age of the patients, their comparative sickness, and any other features that affect the practice. If one has a high proportion of elderly patients, one gets paid more for elderly patients than for younger patients. Any practice that refuses to take elderly patients, for some eccentric reason, will simply find that it is not paid so much per head as if it is taking only younger patients. It is quite easy to put together a budget-negotiating process that makes it clear that there is no financial advantage for any GP to select his patients in that way.
I have described the abolition of the RAWP system, but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire again is quite right in saying that there are still considerable discrepancies, some of them between the English regions and some between the districts. We will therefore be moving towards the system that I have described, over a period of two years for regions and rather longer for districts. There will still be, within an ever-growing total, some further redistribution from the Thames regions to the provinces, before we get to the position that I have described in today's statement.
As between the districts, there will still need to be some movement towards a common, fair and level basis, but we shall phase that in steadily to avoid any sudden movements of funds between districts. We believe that now is the time to get rid of RAWP. We shall certaitnly ensure that none of the discrepancies of the past that were caused by RAWP, and the gaps between targets and sudden movements of funds are brought back again by our new system.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the dramatic programme of reform that he has outlined to the House this afternoon. I share his objective, as I am sure does the whole House, that we should get a better quality Health Service and better value for money.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give me two assurances this afternoon—first, that the opting-out

177
proposals for a number of hospitals will not make it more difficult to plan a comprehensive health care service in areas up and down the country? Secondly—the Secretary of State will be probed fully about this when he comes before the Select Committee—could he go further into detail about how practice budgets will accurately reflect the various breakdowns in the lists of patients, especially the elderly, the mentally ill and the disabled, and where demographic changes occur over time?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a fair man, that now he is prepared to contemplate and look more closely at the details of the full proposals, in the light of his first comments upon them. I think they are both very valid.
I have certainly heard the points he has been making, and we anticipated them. The opting out of hospitals must not disrupt essential services in the area. One condition of self-governing status must be that the region requires that hospital to continue to provide local emergency and other services that must be provided locally. If there are to be changes in the patterns of service, some notice must be given to the districts and regions so that planning can take account of them. All that will be contained in the working documents available to the Select Committee and others.
Similarly, with practice budgets, I tried in a comparatively potted way, by my standards, to give a brief discription a few moments ago of how we were tackling them. We obviously need to ensure that, in putting together the right budget for a general practitioner or group of GPs, we accurately reflect the likely different needs and demands of patients of different ages and conditions.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said this morning on the radio. I should have liked to reply to him then, but no doubt in the Select Committee and in discussions afterwards I shall be able to reassure him on that point.
Mr. Michael Foot: One of the major weaknesses in the Government's review, as it appears to people from outside, and no doubt one of the major causes of the many defects in the plans put before us today, arises from the absence of any consultation, or what could properly be called by that name, by the Government of the people who work in the Service. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now tell us whether he is proposing to have any genuine consultations with people working in the Service: with the nurses, the unions, the British Medical Association, and the presidents of the royal colleges? Are they to be consulted at all, in a way that enables them to make a radical alteration to the proposals that the Secretary of State brings forward, or are the Government proposing to continue with the same method that the Prime Minister used, of slamming the door in the face of the presidents of the royal colleges and not caring what the people who work in the Service have to say?
Mr. Clarke: The National Health Service has a rather poor track record in communicating with its own staff and the people who work in it. For that reason, immediately after this statement we are having an exercise that will communicate with all our staff throughout the Service, and we shall discuss with them the implications for them and their patients of what I am proposing. [Interruption.]
178
The reaction to that, as we can hear, is that any attempt to communicate in that way, rather than through the agency of the trade unions, is bitterly attacked by the Opposition, who are consulting before they have a policy. I accept that that is the principle of the listening party.
I have been looking at Labour's consultation documents and I see that it is not putting forward a solitary idea. All it has come up with so far, rather than putting forward new ideas, is a half-baked idea of an inspectorate, which is the kind of thing one would expect the Labour party to come up with.
The Labour party's idea of consultation on health policy, as we all know, is to ring up NUPE, reversing the charges, and ask what they should be expected to say. We propose to run the Health Service in an altogether more constructive fashion.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that, in answering any attack on this scheme, he must emphasise the caring nature of any Government who will spend an extra £3,300 million on the Health Service in this period?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend answer two questions for me? Will the amount of money that will be available to the large practices, allow them to use funds for the support of cottage hospitals in the country, to build up some of them in areas where they provide a major service for people?
Secondly, will my right hon. and learned Friend perhaps think again to overcome the appointment of consultants by means of a contract for life? The concept that any person today can from the moment he gets his first appointment believe that he holds the appointment for ever seems inequitable and wrong. For a consultant, surely, a four-year contract to begin with, then to be renewed, is something everyone would support.
Mr. Clarke: If a well-run general practice makes savings on its practice budget, for example, by making use of a new formulary and tightening up prescribing costs, it will be able to plough back those savings into local services. We will not claw savings back from successful practices. That would permit them, for example, to put the funds into cottage hospitals supported by local GPs as part of local general practice.
On consultants' contracts, we are not changing the basic nature of the contract, which is not quite as my hon. Friend described: a consultant is in theory open to dismissal at three months' notice. At the moment, that is subject to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), we are reconsidering the position because of the ineffectiveness of that right of appeal and the length of time it has taken in the past. We think that we have reached agreement with the profession about it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which has clarified some points which did not come across in the official leaks. For example, until today I was not aware that Northern Ireland was included in the review. Will there be a discussion with people in Northern Ireland akin to what is planned for England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, Scotland? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland paid a fleeting visit to the Chamber earlier, but there is no one from Northern Ireland here now to answer such questions.

179
Will the National Health Service management executive and the National Health Service policy board include representatives from Northern Ireland, or are they technically for England and Wales? The Minister said that efficient hospitals would not have to close wards because there was not enough money. Is that an open-ended commitment to general practitioners throughout the land to provide them with sufficient funds to treat their patients properly?
Mr. Clarke: I understand the hon. Member not fully appreciating the scope of the review before today, because he had to rely on the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to be the interpreter of most of the documents which were available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been closely involved in all this. The review will apply to Northern Ireland, but in a way which reflects the local service. One whole chapter, chapter 12, is about Northern Ireland and explains exactly what will happen. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have discussions within Northern Ireland with all interested parties.
The policy board and the management executive relate to my responsibilities, which are for the English Health Service and for England only. The position in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is different in a number of important ways. My respective right hon. Friends will be responsible entirely for the way in which the principles of the policy are put into practice in their countries.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his imaginative proposals, which are centred not on the clinicians or on the administrators but on the patients, are warmly welcomed on this side of the House, as they will be throughout the country? It must make sense that patients, GPs and administrators can choose where treatment is to take place on the basis of quality and cost. That can be done only if it is possible to compare costing in the Health Service with that in the private sector. At present, that is not practicable in many areas, because the information is not there. What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to enable comparisons to be made?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with all the points which my hon. Friend has made. It is important that, when people are making a choice based on a combination of quality and cost, they should have the best information. The information should be properly comparable between one hospital and another within the Health Service and between the NHS hospital and the private sector provision. That would make it possible for a district health authority or a general practitioner to look to the private sector for part of the service and equally possible for the private sector to look to the NHS. The artificial divisions, and the daft political argument that has gone on about the respective merits of the public and private sectors, should be put behind us, and we should all work to the best effect for patient care.
We will have to develop systems for costing. That will include examining methods of reflecting various capital costs between one and the other, as well as the revenue costs incurred in particular services. This will involve a major management effort over the next couple of years before the system can get running.
Mr. Jack Ashley: If the National Health Service is to be as good as the Minister
180
says, why is he encouraging older people to take out private medical insurance? Surely they are wasting their money. If the NHS is not to be as good as he says, what will happen to the millions of people who cannot afford private medical insurance? Can he tell us also why he has misled the House of Commons about the future of the Health Service? Does he recognise that great institutions in Britain are driven by their objectives and that the noble objective of the National Health Service is the best possible treatment, which is to be replaced by the cheapest possible treatment? That is an act of political vandalism for which he will never be forgiven.
Mr. Clarke: As the right hon. Gentleman puts it, we may be encouraging elderly people to go for private care, but they do not need encouragement from the Government. It is an inevitable consequence of rising living standards that an ever-increasing proportion of the population want to consider making insurance provision for their own health care. I cannot for the life of me see why we should stand in their way. If we encourage it for those over the age of 60 it will benefit millions of other elderly people by reducing the pressure on elective surgery in the Health Service, thus reducing waiting lists and waiting times. That is the basis on which we are proceeding.
I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman described as the noble objective of the National Health Service. The growing silence and absence of people on the Opposition Benches is because they realise that they have been misled by their official spokesman into believing that that objective was under attack. No doubt most of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have gone to the Library to look through the document to try to discover how the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) felt able to base his attack on the document by raising all over again his ridiculous hare that we were trying to privatise the service.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of 100 new consultants must have an effect on waiting lists? Will he also confirm that these consultants will be given the necessary back-up staff they require?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Over three years, there will be 100 extra consultants, with the necessary support care they require. The problem is not with the people. There are a little over 100 who will be qualified for appointment in that time. We need the actual men and women to be consultants. Then we need the operating theatre time, the beds, the nursing staff and so on. Finance will be available to provide the back-up which will enable the extra work to be done. The consultants will be appointed in key specialties such as general surgery and general medicine where waiting times are worst. The extra consultants will also have some impact on the problem of junior doctors' hours. It is not every junior doctor who works the long hours which we all know to be excessive. Junior doctors' hours tend to be worse in general surgery, general medicine and obstetrics.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The statement is nonsense in Wales, where we do not have regional health authorities. We should have had our own statement. Can the Secretary of State clarify the position in large, scattered areas, where virtually no medical practice comes up to the

181
11,000 threshold? They will miss out on the opportunities. Likewise, in valley communities, will this not lead to an amalgamation of practices and a lessening of choice for patients? As there are virtually no private beds in Wales, is it not appalling that paragraph 11.9 of the White Paper should give priority to an increase in private provision, which is deeply detestable to the thousands of doctors, nurses, paramedicals and auxiliaries who work in Wales and who have given a lifetime of service to the NHS? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that any hospitals currently under threat of closure will have the threat removed until the full implications of the statement have worked through?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was also closely involved. There is a chapter on Wales, which the hon. Gentleman will have seen. Wales is of a size similar to an English region. That gives my right hon. Friend and the Welsh the advantage of having the centre of the service much closer to practical provision on the ground. The Welsh have been spared some of the remoteness which I hope we shall now overcome in England by devolving so much responsibility to lower levels of management nearer to the patient. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman wants to be sure that GP budgets are introduced in Wales. Any question of reducing the threshold for Welsh general practice will have to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's revolutionary proposals for patients, within an evolutionary framework. But will he confirm that, when the GPs' budgeting scheme comes into force—including the scheme for prescriptions—no surgeries will close and no patients will be deterred from treatment or turned away because of a lack of resources?
Mr. Clarke: I can give an absolute assurance to that effect. As will be clear to my hon. Friend, now that he has the documents, the system will be very flexible. Those who start overspending can indeed be called to account, but there is no question of stopping the service.
For the past few days, my hon. Friend and I have had to put up with critics projecting the absurd vision of practices closing down in the middle of February until the next financial year, people being turned away from medical treatment and so forth. Anyone who wants to know what will happen should study our proposals with care. Those who have tried to find criticisms of them have been on a wild goose chase.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Secretary of State has already told us about the massive extension of medical auditing, accountancy and financial costs that his proposals will entail. Has he costed the proposals? If so, will he tell us what the cost will be, and whether he will make additional finance available to the Health Service or intends to meet the cost of his reforms from existing expenditure?
Mr. Clarke: "Medical audit" is a phrase that I do not like when it is applied to a system of quality control devised by the medical profession. Clinicians will consult each other about the outcome or success of procedures, comparing notes and advising each other on how to raise
182
the standard. That is separate from financial auditing. We have always had financial auditing in the Health Service, and we are now strengthening that by giving it to the Audit Commission and making it independent from the Health Departments. I am sure that the whole House wants good financial auditing and value-for-money studies in the Health Service, in the interests of taxpayers and patients.
We made provision for some of the implementation costs in this year's public spending round. Provision has already been made in regional budgets for the introduction of financial management systems and so on, which, despite the attacks on them by Opposition Members, are desirable in themselves. If we were not reviewing the Health Service, we should still want Health Service management to take advantage of the best modern management techniques and to improve management information. It is shell-backed in the extreme for the Opposition to oppose advances in a great public service.
I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the cost of the proposals will not be met at the expense of plans for patient provision. There will be some cost up front, although eventually the savings made by cutting out waste will outweigh that and will benefit the service generally.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Having removed the difficulty of doctors using different areas, can my right hon. and learned Friend envisage a system in which the number of vacant beds is made available to doctors, so that, instead of having to ring round and ask hospital after hospital whether there is a vacancy, they will know immediately?
When will the self-governing hospitals come in? Is it possible to advance the date if a hospital wants to become independent before then?
Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. It is an excellent idea. I envisage that, as soon as possible, the microcomputer that every GP will have on his desk will provide, among other things, instant access to information about waiting lists within a wide area of his practice, so that he can advise patients about the shortest waiting times. In future, when he refers his patients, the hospital will pay for the extra patients, whereas in the past he would rather pay the hospital to keep it quiet, because it might receive patients for which no financial provision had been made.
We shall put the first self-governing hospitals into operation as quickly as we can, but for all the reasons that have been enumerated, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), it will take a year or two before the first hospitals are capable of managing the process of self-government and making a success of it.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Will there be separate Scottish legislation to give effect to the document? Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that he has now put the final nail into the lid of the coffin of the Tory party north of the border? It is transparently clear that the intention of the lady in Downing street is to fracture the national character of our Health Service and commercialise it, as a prelude to privatising it. We have never believed her claim that the National Health Service was safe in her private-patient hands. Is the Secretary of State aware that the fundamental gulf between the Scottish people and the English Tory party that governs us at

183
present is that we do not consider the concept of market forces compatible with the medical ethic of providing care at the point of human need?
Mr. Clarke: We will probably not begin drafting legislation for any country until the summer, when the process of discussion will have advanced considerably. I am certainly not contemplating legislation in the present session of Parliament. When we draft the legislation we shall no doubt decide whether to have separate Bills for England, Scotland and the other countries or to have a single Bill for all of them.
I am rather vague about Scottish questions, because although the document contains a chapter dealing with them, the system of governing the Health Service in Scotland is completely devolved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is clearly best placed to answer questions about Scotland, and has already offered a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should think that opinion in Scotland will be so different from that in England. It would be absurd if we had a modern, more patient-conscious and efficient Health Service in England while the Scots preserved the Health Service as it was 40 years ago, with some modest changes. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend does not intend that, and that he will ensure that the Scottish Health Service, in a Scottish fashion, is made stronger, better and more responsive to patient needs.
Mr. Steve Norris: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. May I remind him, however, of his comment that the better the management, the better would be the care? Many of us may be disappointed if he limits the management of consultants' contracts to giving district health authorities some sort of vague agency rights. Those of us with experience of managing the service at district level will look to him to ensure that consultants' contracts are held at that level by those who have to manage the consultants. Will he assure us that his effective management of consultants will include that provision?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has considerable experience of a district health authority himself, and I know that his views are shared by many people in such authorities. I ask him, however, to look closely at our proposals. Although the contract will be held with the region—it would be disruptive to change that for the sake of change—management of the contract will be devolved to the district, as the region's agent. In particular, the new provision for an up-to-date job description, to be reviewed each year, will close the gulf that sometimes now exists between local management and consultant.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Secretary of State failed to answer the point about lack of consultation. Will he now tell us plainly why the review had to take place behind closed doors? Could the reason have been a fear that evidence given publicly by those in the profession would get in the way of imposing this kind of change? Will the Secretary of State admit his determination to impose cash limits on general practice? Can he not imagine the shudder that will go through people when they realise that their treatment will be subject to the state of the practice budget?
Mr. Clarke: I hear what the hon. Lady says about consultation, but it seems to me that it is the duty of Government—and of a political party, come to that—to have a policy on how they propose to improve a great public service. Of course, having produced our policy, we are also producing a large amount of back-up material on which we will have the widest possible discussion with everyone interested, and we are starting discussions with our own staff straight away.
We are engaging in much closer discussion with those who really work in the Service than I think has been tried by anyone before. The Labour Party's idea of consultation is to take a blank sheet of paper with no policy on it and to hold a series of silly meetings at which it asks whether anyone has a good idea. That is no way to form a policy.
I have already tried to explain—successfully to most people—that there is no prospect of patients' access to care being determined by the state of GPs' budgets. In the extreme case of a practice that has consistently overspent by more than 5 per cent. for two years in succession. its budget will be taken away and it will be brought back into the general service. That will be a matter between the practice and the regional health authority. The patient will not notice any difference, except that, if the budget is operated properly, he will find that his GP can offer better choice and service, and hospitals will have an added incentive to provide better service.
Mr. John Greenway: Does not the clear and unambiguous support for the principle of a free Health Service available to all, outlined in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's foreword to the White Paper, constitute the most significant commitment to the National Health Service since it was formed 40 years ago? Is it not also right that the success of any service should be measured by the satisfaction of its customers and that, in putting patients first and creating a more coherent, responsive and effective National Health Service, the Government are right to say that we are working for the patient?
Mr. Clarke: The Labour party has been acting in this way for years. I am sure we all remember the 1983 election, which was largely fought by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) claiming that he had a secret document that said that the Government were about to privatise the Health Service. All that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has done is to take that old gimmick out of its box, give it a whirl again and claim that it was possible to rerun the story on the strength of the leaked information he had received. We have not only repeatedly committed ourselves to the National Health Service—as we do today—but we have demonstrated that commitment by putting in more resources to enable the Service to treat 1·5 million more patients now than when the Government came to office. We have made it a better and more effective service for patients, and we propose to continue doing so.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Will the Secretary of State accept that, for the first time since the formation of the National Health Service, general practitioners will have financial incentives to limit how they treat their patients? There will be a restriction on prescribing and an incentive to refer fewer patients to hospital. Most importantly, there will be a strong disincentive for doctors to take on to their lists high-risk, high-cost patients such as

185
the elderly, the chronically sick and the mentally ill. There is already evidence that, in the United States, where there are budget restrictions, such patients find it hard to persuade a GP to take them on. What would be acceptable grounds for budget practice GPs refusing patients? What right of appeal would the patients have, and to whom would those GPs be accountable if they refused?
Mr. Clarke: I do not understand why we should not offer incentives to GPs to make cost savings in their practices. At present there are wide discrepancies in costs between similar practices. Prescribing costs vary between different practices by as much as four times; the number of patients referred to hospital can vary by 20 times. If savings are made by GPs, they will not be clawed back by the Treasury but will be ploughed back into the practice to develop patient care in any way that the GP wants—for instance, in the form of new chairs for the waiting room or the support for a community hospital that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) mentioned.
I thought that I had dealt several times with the argument that there will be incentives to take low-risk patients. That might be so if we paid the same rate for every patient, but we do not. By paying more for high-risk patients we have eliminated the risk—which I understand the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) fears—that there might be a disincentive to take high-risk patients. We always do our best to ensure that no such perverse incentives are built into health care systems.
When the hon. Member for Greenwich studies the report, she will find that much of what it recommends is astonishingly near to what the leader of her party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), advocated two or three years ago as an internal market in the Service. We have refined that idea to a much greater extent than anybody else and produced a good system, whereby cash follows patients. Immediately, the Social Democrats disown their interest in the internal market, saying that it is a commercial system and dreaming up all sorts of fanciful risks that they say will lie behind it.
Mr. Derek Conway: The fact that the NHS is treating more patients with more doctors and resources proves the Government's commitment to the NHS, not the Opposition's stolen lies. What will the proposals mean for rural areas such as Shropshire, which has a population of less than half a million but covers a land mass in excess of 25 per cent. of the west midlands? We should also like to opt out of the dead hand of regional control.
Mr. Clarke: I am familiar with the problems of Shropshire, not least because they are often pressed upon me by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway)—[Interruption.] I think that my hon. Friend will acknowledge—even if the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is not instantly familiar with Shropshire—that the background to the problems in Shropshire is that we are opening, at considerable expense, a new district general hospital in Telford. Shropshire will have two district general hospitals, and would have had 20 small ones as well, had the service not been rationalised.
I know that my hon. Friend disapproves of how the region, and to some extent the district, have gone about rationalisation. Therefore, I am sure that he will welcome
186
any proposals that give more local responsibility for such matters. Shropshire will want to take advantage of them as quickly as possible.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: The Secretary of State's own GP will undoubtedly receive a large premium for looking after him after these these reforms are introduced, because he clearly has only a tenuous grasp of reality. The proposal is born of the eccentric mind of someone in the Adam Smith Institute who has no concept of what it is like to run a health service, as opposed to talking and thinking about one.
I wish to put three specific points to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please.
Dr. Moonie: The three points are all part of the same question about how the service will be administered.
The Secretary of State mentioned the patients' dependency as a factor for calculating costs. Is he aware that there is no way of measuring costs on an individual basis? He mentioned patient administration systems in hospitals. Is he aware that, as yet, no such system is fully effective? How long will it be until such a system is fully effective and capable of general introduction? Where shall we find computer staff to run it? The Health Service is already short of such staff.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for clarity about how to measure different aspects and needs of patient care. As he knows, our English system of RAWP and the similar system in Scotland, SHARE, depend on a complicated formula that attempts to distribute resources on the basis of population, numbers, age and morbidity. It is easier—
Dr. Moonie: Reliable data do not exist—ask your officials.
Mr. Clarke: That is how it works. We shall discuss details afterwards. I am more familiar with RAWP than the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). Any distribution of funds involves such calculations. We must make the best calculations using modern methods. We have been developing patient administration systems and resource management information systems as rapidly as possible. They are required in the Health Service and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome their introduction. We have an ambitious timetable to introduce the necessary systems to implement the reforms. We shall need computer staff to do so, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition that the modern administration of a good large system is a good step—even if, at present, that is not remotely comprehended by his right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: If greater efficiency and better value for money are the watchwords of the White Paper, as they seem to be from my initial reading of it, is it not true that the health authorities appear to have escaped leniently? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for the abolition of regional health authorities and for the absorption of some of their residual activities into the Department of Health? That would strengthen and exercise greater control over district health authorities. Is it not a fact that, rather than approaching it in that way, the White Paper appears to be strengthening the power of the regions?
Mr. Clarke: I would not take the powers of the regions back into the centre on any account. If we had to deal directly with 190 districts and 90 family practitioner committees—without any regional authorities—it would be impossible to have any effective contact. We shall get the regional health authorities to concentrate on their real job, which is distributing funds locally, monitoring performance and laying out policy objectives. We shall stop the amount of detailed decision and supervision at regional level, which is no longer suitable for the Service.
Mr. Terry Davis: As some general practitioners refuse to give reasons for removing people from their list, how will the Secretary of State prevent a general practitioner from removing a patient from his list when the high risk has become high cost? If family doctors are trying to work within a budget, and even make savings, how can patients be sure that the doctors will do their best to arrange for the treatment needed by a patient, even if it means that the budget will be exceeded? Does not this development strike at the very heart of the relationship between doctors and patients?
Mr. Clarke: The doctor will be paid for a high-risk patient. Therefore, the financial incentive which the hon. Gentleman believes to exist simply will not exist. With regard to the patient's satisfaction with his or her treatment and service, we propose to make it easier for the patient to choose for him or herself. If patients become dissatisfied with the service they are receiving from one doctor, we shall ensure that it will be easy to transfer from one doctor to another. That will give a greater incentive to general practitioners to ensure that the quality of the service and the way in which it is provided are the best possible for the patients in their care.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I welcome the confirmation that cottage hospitals, which in Norfolk do so much for the care of the elderly, will still have a role to play. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, increasingly, their future will be in the private sector, but with beds set aside for NHS patients?
Mr. Clarke: I believe that many cottage hospitals have an extremely important future. The last one I visited was Bealeys. It is an extremely small, well-run, GP hospital, which has a secure future in Bury. I know that there are many cottage hospitals in Norfolk, too.
The cottage hospitals will, of course, be able to continue as they are now. They will be given, anyway, greater responsibility for their affairs, because of the general devolving of responsibility about which we are talking. It is conceivable that some will find that self-governing status is suitable for them. Some hospitals are run by the GPs as independent hospitals. It is that variety of provision which is best. People in Norfolk know best how to provide for Norfolk. The combination of NHS and private care provided in Norfolk in their small hospitals will make it much easier for people in Norfolk to decide on their care.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree, from his constituency and family experience, that people, especially the elderly, value district general hospitals and expect to go there—not further afield—when they are ill? Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's scheme encourage wider
188
movement? Why should people from Newham have to go to Newmarket, people from Grantham to Gainsborough, or people from Finchley to Fulham? Is not such criss-cross market movement, even perhaps by motorway, completely incompatible with the wishes and the deep desires of the patients? How does he square that with the signed statement by the Prime Minister that the patient's needs will always be paramount? Does not that incongruity suggest that neither patients nor the Health Service are safe in her hands?
Mr. Clarke: I agree that patients look increasingly to local provision, which is why we have had such a massive system of capital expenditure to improve local hospital provision throughout the country, and it is much less concentrated than it was. When confronted with the choice of either speedy treatment 30 miles down the road or a long wait for treatment in their local hospital, it will be for the patient and his or her GP to decide whether the inconvenience of travel is worth the speedier treatment. It would be perverse to deny patients that opportunity to choose. We are proposing that the patient should make the choice.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us about extra resources for patients who have come out of hospital—for instance, stroke patients—and need physiotherapy if they are to recover the faculties and functions they lost? My right hon. Friend will recall that Devon Members discussed this matter with him a couple of weeks ago. As there is less provision to keep patients in hospital long term—that seems to be a medical trend—the need for follow-up medical services and services ancillary to medicine simply are not being met at the moment. How does the very imaginative scheme that he has announced today compete with that admitted problem?
Mr. Clarke: Certainly, the services of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend are every bit as important for the local community as services in the acute sectors of the hospital. I should make it clear that, when we talk about self-governing hospitals, what we are talking about in practice is the hospital together with the associated community health services, which we are used to seeing provided alongside hospital services, such as district midwifery and health visitor services, physiotherapists and other people providing service. We shall have to deal with the problem of stroke patients and others in Devon in our response to the Griffiths report on care in the community. We shall have to ensure that we are able to make the best and most sensible use of the resources available to carry on strengthening our community services.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have an obligation to protect the subsequent business. I appreciate the importance of this statement. I will allow it to continue for a further five minutes. We shall then have had an hour and a half, which is a long time for a statement, but then we must move on.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Secretary of State began his speech by bemoaning the increasing cost of drugs to the National Health Service. Why does he not insist upon generic substitution for drugs

189
in the Health Service, or even—better still—tackle the problem at source by taking the private monopoly drug companies into public ownership?
Mr. Clarke: I believe that general practioners should prescribe generic drugs when the remedy is as effective as a more expensive and branded alternative. We have been encouraging that. The last time that I was involved in an attempt to move in that direction, with a selected list, the Labour party made the foolish mistake of opposing it bitterly as a wicked attack on a doctor's freedom of choice. Having seen some of the hon. Gentleman's documents, I believe that his party is at least moving in the right direction on that subject. We shall not force generic substitution. We are constructing a system which will give every encouragement to general practitioners to make a sensible clinical judgment and go for the less expensive remedy when it is every bit as effective medically as the expensive alternative. We are tackling that all over again, and I look forward to the support of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his proposals will be welcomed by everyone who has the future of the NHS at heart? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, too, that the fact that patients will be given more choice and power will provide the best possible spur to greater efficiency, effectiveness and consumer acceptability? Does he agree that the only person to whom his proposals must have come as a bitter disappointment is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) whose statements over the past few days have been shown to be so absurd that he no longer possesses any shred of credibility?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I entirely endorse what he said. These proposals are for the benefit of the patient and every management or financial change of whatever complexity has underlying it the desire to ensure that the resources go to where they can best be used for patient care. The Labour party has no answer or equivalent to that. As my hon. Friend has said, I hope that the silly games that the Labour party has been playing in the past few days will be exposed for what they are.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister confirm that his proposals will mean the end of national pay bargaining, and that one of the reasons for him meeting in secret was that he did not want to alert the staff to that fact? Is he aware of the disgust at the decision to kick out the only elected members of district health authorities, which is just one more example of the authoritarianism of this Government?
Mr. Clarke: I have long been advocating a much more flexible pay system for the National Health Service.
Mrs. Mahon: We know that.
Mr. Clarke: We have introduced more flexibility for some staff. We have asked the review body to consider
190
allowing us to experiment with more local variations in the remuneration of nurses where there are local difficulties in recruiting them.
Of course, we keep our present structure of pay bargaining, but I make no apology for saying that I think our proposals will encourage more flexibility, and the self-governing hospitals in particular will take full advantage of it.
We are altering the nature of the district health authorities. It is nonsense that, at the moment, local government has the right to directly nominate representatives on the Health Service. Many of them do very valuable work but, at the other extreme, there are some who are merely there to bring local politics into the decision-making process of the Health Service. In some cases they have been exceedingly disruptive and people working in the Health Service—doctors and others—have to sit and listen to discussions of subjects which are only dimly related to the day-to-day problems with which they are dealing with in the hospitals.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: In giving a strong welcome to these proposals, but questioning whether they go far enough, can I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to acknowledge that restructuring the system, replacing one allocation system by another or introducing budgetary independence does not in itself create net additional resources with which to satisfy the increasing demand for medical services of all kinds? Will he therefore keep an open mind about extending the tax relief that has been introduced for elderly people—which I very much welcome—not ruling out the possibility in the course of time of basic charges for hospital services?
Mr. Clarke: Plainly, we are injecting resources into the health system at the moment because we are reflecting rising demands for health care. Our proposals are not a substitute for more resources but are accompanying the extra resources which the Government are putting in from the taxpayer in order to make better use of the service. That is the way forward.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend on the general case for tax relief, largely for reasons which lie outside my direct province. I do not believe that the tax policy of the Government is to give tax relief for desirable forms of expenditure compared with others. We prefer a level of taxation which is low and gives the maximum individual choice to the taxpayer. However, the position of the retired, who often have contributed during their lifetime to health care, is different and it is defensible to say that to encourage, in the public interest, those people to continue in, or come into, private insurance is beneficial in effect for the general public.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to those hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who have not been called that I shall do my best to ensure that they are given some precedence when we subsequently debate this matter.

Points of Order
5.2 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, in response to queries from a number of my hon. Friends the Secretary of State said that hon. Members on the Government Benches had in their possession certain documents which could be obtained from the Vote Office. I am not suggesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was attempting to mislead the House, but what he said was not true. The White Paper was available in the Vote Office, but the abbreviated version distributed on the Government Benches—the idiot's guide to the White Paper—was not available either in the Vote Office or in the Library. Even the DHSS press office was unable to say when it would become available, although it believed that it was intended to be made available at the Secretary of State's press conference.
I should be grateful, therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you would quire into how the custom and practice of the House came to be breached in this way, so that pamphlets printed at public expense were distributed on the Tory Benches but not on the Opposition Benches, and make sure that this does not happen again.
Mr. Speaker: It is not my responsibility, but the Secretary of State will have heard what has been said. I hope that it will always be the practice for the same documents to he equally available to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Tim Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you also, if you are going to undertake such an inquiry, inquire why the document that was available to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was not also made available to the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is equally a matter for others, not for me.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could I draw to your attention the fact that every Privy Councillor you called this afternoon and every spokesman for the minority parties immediately walked out once they had asked their questions? This showed their concern about this matter. The rest of us stayed for an hour and a half. Can you bear this in mind when you give them some sort of preference in the future?
Mr. Speaker: I also have to bear in mind those hon. Members who seek to make interventions from a sedentary position during a statement.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you suggesting in that statement to the House that those of us who may have intervened from a sedentary position will be penalised when you select on the next occasion on which these matters are debated? If so, a very important precedent is being set today. I have sat for two and a half hours in this
192
Chamber waiting to be called. I understand that there are pressures on you, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that you would not penalise me for perhaps saying a word or two across the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Speaker: Twice during the course of the statement, when there was a great deal of noise while the Secretary of State was speaking, I warned those who were intervening from sedentary positions that they could not expect any precedence in being called subsequently to ask a question.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty—[Interruption.] Hold on a bit; you may get reprimanded. It is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that you did not quite establish which hon. Members were making the noise, because the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), an ex-Minister, whom I would not describe as a lager lout, at his age, was swearing, I believe at the leader of the provos, and after about five minutes he was called. So you obviously did not carry out what you threatened to carry out. If you cannot carry it out for him, you cannot carry it out for us.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will agree that, when we have a statement by a Minister for which we have all been waiting for a long time, it should be heard in silence and listened to with attention and not amid shouts from a sedentary position. It is not good parliamentary manners.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CHANNEL TUNNEL ACT 1987 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Robert Hicks, Dr. John Marek, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Peter Rost, Mrs. Rosie Barnes and Mr. Andrew Rowe, presented a Bill to repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 57.]
  RESALE OF TICKETS
  Mr. Menzies Campbell, supported by Mr. David Alton, presented a Bill to prevent the unofficial resale at unreasonably high prices of tickets to events to which the public are admitted: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Armed Forces Housing and Tax
5.6 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a house purchase savings scheme for the armed forces enjoying the same tax relief as houses for owner occupiers and the same treatment under the Building Societies Act 1987.
My Bill seeks to tackle an injustice that has affected the armed forces for a generation. The present Government have a good record on armed forces pay. Indeed, they have applied in full the recommendations of the pay review body in every year since they were elected. But the core of the Thatcher revolution, the heart of the new prosperity, is the ownership of a home. In the country as a whole, approximately 64 per cent. of the population live in owner-occupied accommodation. Within the armed forces, among other ranks fewer than a quarter own houses, and even among officers the figure is below the national average. Moreover, those who do own houses have very severe problems in so doing, as I shall explain in a moment.
Let us consider the position of a sergeant major, or even a major, who retires after many years of service with the bulk of his earning capability behind him and without even the first toehold on the property ladder. A number of such people have ended up commuting the bulk of their public service pensions to buy the most modest little dwellings. Some have simply ended up homeless, and I have had a number of them in my surgeries.
A sergeant whom I know, who has served 21 years in the Army, including 11 tours on active service in Ulster, said:
"I have seen a corporal opposite me with eighteen years service and a sergeant with twenty-two years service round the corner evicted by bailiffs. I have three children at school. I do not understand why I should be joining the back of a queue behind delinquents and squatters for a council house after serving my country for over twenty years."
Had he not joined the Army, that man would almost certainly have been an owner-occupier rather than applying for a council tenancy. I have been approached by any number of former and serving Army—officers most of them worried about the men who have served under them rather than about their own position.
The way in which the Ministry of Defence has tried to tackle this difficulty has been to encourage service men to buy their own houses while they are serving. This has achieved much progress in the Navy and Air Force because most of their personnel serve in this country, but unfortunately in the Army just over half the trained strength serve outside mainland Britain. The problems of buying a house in Ulster are every bit as serious as in Germany or elsewhere abroad. The result is that for the soldier, unlike his civilian counterpart or his counterpart in the other two services, buying a house does not mean buying a home—it means becoming an absentee landlord.
Is it really fair to ask a young family to take on the burden of renting their quarters, paying the mortgage on a house of their own and trying desperately to get a tenant to balance the books? Even if they get a tenant, and no scheme can guarantee that, they have to pay tax on the rent from the tenant, but they get no tax relief on the rent that they pay for their quarters and they also have to pay agents' fees. The result, of course, is that the soldier rapidly decides that the best way to escape all the problems that arise, with or without tenants, is to leave the Army, and a
194
growing proportion of soldiers are doing so. Premature voluntary release from the Army is now up 73 per cent. on what was already an unsatisfactory figure five years ago.
The sad thing is that it is going up fastest among the minority who have bought houses. Their wives simply get desperate. For example, Canterbury's own regiment—the Queen's Regiment—has three battalions, one in Germany, one in Leicester, and one in Tidworth. How on earth is a corporal in Germany or Ulster expected to make mortgage payments in one place and pay rent in another? His wife almost certainly cannot get a job as there are no jobs for wives in BAOR. What is happening in the Queen's Regiment, as in so many others, is that, as soon as a couple have managed to buy a house, the pressure is on the soldier to leave the Army.
The way the problem is tackled by every other employer I know who sends people abroad—including the Civil Service, clerks and drivers in the Foreign Office, teachers sent abroad, as well as the whole of the private sector—is that anyone who goes abroad lives free. As that would be unrealistically expensive for the Army, I am asking for a much more modest scheme which would cost the taxpayer very little. I am asking for a housing savings scheme to be established which would attract the same tax benefits that the rest of us get as owner-occupiers but without forcing the soldier to buy and then let a house. The particular scheme that I have put to the Minister—there is no time for me to go into details now—involves allowing the soldier effectively to buy a quarter, but not that physical building—he buys at a fixed national average price on an index, and when he moves out has to sell back at the new index price.
I have been through the scheme in detail with two building societies. They tell me that the index already exists in outline and that in principle they would be willing to lend against this form of security. The scheme would not cost the taxpayer a penny beyond the amount already available from the taxpayer if the man goes out and buys a house, but it has the enormous advantage that he is not under any pressure to leave the Army when tenant-related problems arise.
I do not wish to push the details of any one particular scheme too hard, but if we are to keep a modern Army together, with the lean recruiting years of the 1990s coming, and if we want to keep the best people in the armed forces, it is essential to introduce a scheme which allows service men to accumulate capital while serving so that they can own a house at the end of their service, with the same tax advantages as their civilian counterparts but without having a house hundreds of miles away that they have to try desperately to let. This is a very grave problem, and one which must be tackled soon. It is a grave injustice and also a foolish injustice because it is driving many of the best people out of the Army.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir William Clark, Sir Jim Spicer, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Antony Buck, Sir Charles Morrison, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Ian Taylor and Mr. Jacques Arnold.

ARMED FORCES HOUSING AND TAX
Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to establish a house purchase savings scheme for the armed forces enjoying the same tax relief as houses of owner occupiers and the same treatment under the Building

195
Societies Act 1987; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 1 February and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Orders of the Day

  Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends.
  Mr. King: It is a key objective of the Government, not merely to prevent discrimination but, much more importantly, to encourage and achieve genuine equality of opportunity in employment. The principal objective of this Bill is a moral one. It is to ensure that a person's opportunity to obtain employment and all its benefits is determined not by which part of the Northern Ireland community he or she comes from, but according to ability, and ability alone. That is a fundamental right of every human being. It is a major political objective of this Government to ensure that it is delivered in Northern Ireland.
  Behind that moral principle lies a stark economic fact: that the male Catholic population in Northern Ireland today has an overall rate of unemployment some two and a half times that of the male Protestant population. It is beyond question that there are substantial and continuing differences in the relative rates of unemployment and employment between the two sections of the community—despite the 1976 Act, despite the hard work of the Fair Employment Agency over 13 years, and despite the efforts of many employers and of successive Governments to attract investment to those areas of greatest economic depression and those areas most severely affected by the troubles.
  Nor is it right to think of this only as a Catholic grievance; discrimination against Protestants clearly exists as well, and is equally unacceptable.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Everybody would deplore discrimination, but to what extent is existing discrimination possibly dependent on the fact that outsiders would not wish to invest in those areas where they might feel IRA activity would render their investment less successful? Also, to what extent is the existing differential in levels derived from the fact that there is intimidation, particularly by the IRA, against people taking up employment opportunities?
  Mr. King: I will say a word about the different causes, but my hon. Friend is right to say that those are two of the elements that contribute to this problem. I have never ceased to remind this House and everybody in Northern Ireland of the damage to employment prospects that terrorism certainly does.
  It would be wrong for me or for anyone to pretend there is a simple explanation for these problems. There is no doubt that to some extent higher Catholic unemployment has been caused by discrimination. I have drawn attention to discrimination against Protestants at times as well. To

  197
  some extent it is caused by terrorism, by geographical differences, by where people live—my hon. Friend drew attention to that as well—or by differences in education, family size or the skills traditionally associated with one community or another.
  But rather than get bogged down in what could be a very long argument about the relative significance of each of these problems, I simply want to say two things. First, the Government recognise that the problem is a complex one, and therefore calls for a variety of different responses. Secondly, we are not willing to accept the problem as though it is in some way inevitable. In a part of the United Kingdom which has a rate of unemployment higher than that of any other region, it is essential that any inequalities are tackled vigorously; that those jobs that are coming are fairly distributed, and everyone has the fullest opportunity to be fairly considered for jobs for which they are suited; and that Northern Ireland should be seen nationally and internationlly as a place to invest where employment practices are fair.
  We do not want the improved perceptions of Northern Ireland as an expanding region with a good supply of well-motivated and highly skilled workers to be tarnished by an image of unfairness in employment. It is not in anyone's interest—for unemployed Protestants, any more than for unemployed Catholics—that that situation should be allowed to continue.
  This Bill marks a further stage in our determination to meet this challenge. We can go right back to the work of Sir William van Straubenzee, a former colleague on this side of the House, in 1973 which led to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Much has been achieved since that time, but it is also clear that we need to reinforce our efforts if we are to get the improvement that we need. More recently, in 1985, we set in hand a major review of the situation, and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights undertook a comprehensive review itself starting in 1985. In 1987, we issued to all employers a guide to effective practice, and in 1988 we established a fair employment support scheme giving free consultancy and financial assistance to introduce better practices. Indeed, many employers are already adopting the practices set out in this Bill.
  I referred to the work of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The recommendations contained in its excellent report have formed the basis for the central provisions of this Bill. The Government strongly endorse many of the views of the standing advisory commission, which have been of major importance in formulating future Government policy on fair employment in Northern Ireland.
  I said at the outset, and I have always said, that there is no question of Protestants being dismissed so that Catholics can take their jobs. I have also said that the Government reject absolutely the proposal that there should be a proportion of jobs reserved for Catholics and another for Protestants. To make appointments on the basis of religion, with whatever motives, would be not only morally wrong but grossly unfair to those individuals who were affected by it. It would also be directly against the economic interests of Northern Ireland employers. One of
  198
  the main principles underlying the Bill is that religion should be irrelevant to anyone's chances of obtaining employment.
  This is one of the lessons we have learnt. Another which has emerged from the past 10 years' experience of the existing fair employment legislation is that simply to prevent or to avoid direct and deliberate discrimination is not in itself enough to ensure equality of opportunity between Catholics and Protestants. Disadvantage arises often from unconscious discrimination as well as from deliberate sectarian prejudice.
  Established patterns of employment tend to perpetuate themselves, particularly in a divided society. This can very easily lead to the virtual exclusion of either Catholics or Protestants from a particular work force. Without any deliberate or malign reason, one section of the community may find itself effectively excluded from consideration when vacancies are being filled. One of the main aims of the Bill is therefore to ensure that, where necessary—and it very often will be necessary—employers take positive steps to open up their employment opportunities to applicants from all sections of the community. Equality of opportunity is not something that will happen of its own accord; it must be planned for and worked for, like other business objectives, and that is what a main part of this Bill is about.
  Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State keeps talking about Catholics and Protestants. Should he not be taking about perceived Catholics and perceived Protestants and on the basis of which primary schools they attended? Does he not recall that there was a famous case in Northern Ireland when an individual complained on religious grounds, because he was a Free Presbyterian, of discrimination perpetrated against her by another Protestant denomination? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the freedom of each Protestant denomination to complain when it believes that it is being discriminated against by another Protestant denomination will be included in the Bill?
  Mr. King: Of course it will be open to people to raise complaints about discrimination on the basis of religion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point in an entirely constructive way to help to tackle the evil of discrimination, wherever it may arise, and not in any sense to suggest that this measure is not a sensible way in which to proceed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It has helped to make that point very clearly.
  What this Bill seeks to do is to improve the recruitment and employment policies of Northern Ireland employers. The Bill places a number of new duties on employers and provides new ways in which employers can obtain the information and the advice which they will need in order to discharge their obligations as effectively as possible.
  Part I of the Bill deals with the new institutional arrangements. In place of the Fair Employment Agency, the Fair Employment Commission will be established with considerably enhanced powers and a substantial increase in funding and staffing. Its powers will be to investigate and give directives for changes, if necessary, and to investigate patterns and practices of employment. The commission will have significant powers, but they are very much intended as back-up powers. I emphasise that the Bill's first aim is to promote a constructive working relationship between the commission and employers. The

  199
  commission will be responsible for drawing up the new code of practice, with detailed guidance for employers on how to improve their employment practices and to help them in that way. In advance of the new code, we shall make available before the Committee stage a preliminary draft of the revised guide to effective practice, which will serve in the interim period, in advance of the new code being available, as the first code.
  The commission will seek to help employers to find workable solutions to their problems, and will be keen to encourage voluntary undertakings, in suitable circumstances, to achieve those objectives.
  In addition to the commission, the Bill establishes a new fair employment tribunal, which will operate on the model of industrial tribunals. It will deal with individual complaints of religious discrimination, such as the one to which the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred, as well as with others that might more commonly occur. It will also deal with the enforcement of directives of the commission, or it will hear appeals against directives.
  In this way, a new body will be established which will cover both the responsibility for determining individual cases and appeals and enforcement. It will be exclusively concerned with fair employment issues and thus will build up considerable experience and expertise in such matters. Another very important point that many people have recognised and appreciated, and one that is very different from the present situation, is that this body will be quite separate from the body that is conducting the investigations, giving advice and trying to help employers to meet their commitments and obligations. That will be the task of the Fair Employment Commission.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House that the Bill's proposals have been broadly welcomed by employers in Northern Ireland, whether they be Roman Catholic or Protestant?
  Mr. King: There is a general recognition among industries and employers of the need for fair employment to be established in Northern Ireland. Many employers have spoken to me and have given warm general support for the objectives. But I am also aware that there are employers who are concerned about the specific application of individual aspects. Those matters will be discussed in Committee because there are concerns about the ways in which details will apply. I have found that the employers to whom I have spoken support the need for firm legislation and are determined—as people determined to work for the good of the Province—that Northern Ireland shall be recognised as a place where fair employment practices operate. However, there may be concern about details and those are matters that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will seek to discuss in Committee.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise if he is about to come to this matter. He has implied that the commission will have a great deal of power and will be able to direct companies as to what they should do with regard to fair employment practices. Could he tell the House what these powers are and in what areas the commission will be able to give direction? Could my right hon. Friend be specific?
  Mr. King: I may be able to help my hon. Friend because I am coming to the point about the duties of employers, when the matter will become clear. Part II deals with the new duties of employers. It deals with the duty to register, to monitor and periodically to review their practices to see if they need affirmative action. It provides duties and powers for the commission to assist employers and to assess how they are doing. It also provides for Government grants and public sector contracts to be withheld from defaulting employers.
  There have been a number of misconceptions about monitoring. Monitoring is concerned with the overall pattern of a work force, not with the religious affiliation of any particular individual. There have been suggestions that monitoring will reinforce or introduce sectarian divisions. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), that is one of the employers' concerns. We do not believe that that is the case. It is certainly not the experience of those employers in Northern Ireland, both in the public and the private sectors and in the Civil Service, who are already operating monitoring programmes. Monitoring is a statistical exercise and any information about identifiable individuals is subject to very important statutory safeguards.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, when monitoring takes place. it is important that there should be a reliable degree of accuracy and that, where up to 8 per cent. of employees cannot be identified, there is an unreasonable degree of accuracy? Steps should be taken to correct that.
  Mr. King: I am not quite clear about the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is no doubt one that he can make in his own speech later or pursue in Committee.
  In addition to the monitoring of employees that I have described, the Bill also provides that all public sector employers and private sector employers with more than 250 employees will also be required to monitor applications for employment, to cover applications to join the existing work force. The second important obligation on registered employers is to review their employment practices, to assess whether fair participation is being achieved and to consider what affirmative action may be needed.
  The Bill does not attempt to define fair participation or to prescribe any particular levels or proportion of participation for which all employers should aim. What is fair must depend on the circumstances of the individual company. It must take account of where it is, the size and nature of the catchment area from which employees are drawn, the type of work involved and the availability of suitably qualified applicants.
  In essence, what the employer must ask himself is whether, given all the factors and circumstances, the composition of the work force is broadly in line with what may reasonably be expected, or not. Does the composition of the recruits reflect the mix of Protestant and Catholic employees that might be expected, given the catchment area and the balance of population, or not? If it does not, what plan of action and affirmative action is needed to achieve fair participation?
  Those questions require the local knowledge of the employer. There can be no absolutely right level of mix; it will vary from work force to work force and from place to place. There is no precise mathematical formula to

  201
  recognise whether a broad pattern is roughly right, or markedly out of line. That is something that a fair employer should be well able to assess.
  Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. King: I shall finish this point first.
  Employers can call on the commission to advise on how the review should be carried out. The employer will also have the code of practice, which will guide him on the sort of changes that may be required in his employment practices.
  I make no secret of the fact that that is not an easy or precise exercise. I have sought to explain to the House that there are different situations, as anybody who studies these matters knows well. Anybody who has studied the report produced by the Ford Motor Co. at Dunmurry, which analysed the complexities of the issues involved, knows how difficult are some of the issues that must be assessed. But anybody who studies the matter also knows how easily one can tell the difference between those who are genuinely trying and those who are making no attempt at all.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. Friend says that the measure builds on the principles of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Will he tell the House how many proceedings have been brought under that Act and how often the authorities, acting under the Act, have made specific proposals for changes in the law? Are we simply going through a charade to try to ensure that we receive the MacBride money?
  Mr. King: I did not say that the Bill builds on the principles of the 1976 legislation, but rather that it develops the approach to fair employment and tackling discrimination. The Bill carries it further. I would need to check the exact number, but not many proceedings have been brought under the 1976 Act. One of the criticisms that could be made of it would be that it was based on a voluntary approach and involved a declaration of intent. There was a lack of monitoring of that intent and people were able to certify themselves as equal opportunity employers. There was little monitoring to discover whether that intent was being carried through into practice.
  We considered moving from the declaration of intent to a declaration of practice, which would be closely observed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) may have been with us all the way through a succession of consultation documents and White Papers on the matter, and nobody can say that the issue has not been the subject of exhaustive discussion. We decided not to follow that practice but to lay duties on employers first to register if they employ more than 10 people—for the first two years, the relevant number will be 25 people. Once employers register, they will have to monitor the composition of the work force and they will have to submit an annual return. They will also have to review their performance and assess their progress every three years.
  Mr. Budgen: How many proceedings have been brought?
  Mr. King: That structure—
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question?
  Mr. King: That is the structure that we have set up. It is a different structure. I have explained to my hon. Friend why there were very few actions and prosecutions—
  Mr. Budgen: How many?
  Mr. King: I shall find out the exact number, but I know that there were very few. The system did not work.
  Mr. Budgenrose—
  Mr. King: I do not intend to be heckled by my hon. Friend. I have tried to give him an honest answer and to explain the background to the problem and why there were very few prosecutions or actions. I explained in my opening remarks that the situation was virtually unchanged since the introduction of the 1976 Act and following the assessment of the standing advisory commission, commissioned by the Government in 1985, the need for more effective action was identified. That is precisely why the Bill has been introduced.
  What happens if the outcome of an employer's monitoring and review shows that there is a need for affirmative action? Such action is defined in the Bill as the adoption of practices designed to secure fair participation in employment by Catholics or Protestants and the abandonment of practices which may restrict or discourage fair participation. There have been many calls for that definition to be made more precise. At present, however, it can cover a whole range of different approaches, and we do not wish to exclude options that might be relevant in given circumstances by being more precise. It might depend on—
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend always seeks to intervene 10 seconds before I come to the point.
  Affirmative action might involve widening the catchment area, removing obstacles that stop some people applying, the setting of goals and timetables of the ending of haphazard recruiting arrangements. It might involve the setting up of special training facilities. It might, indeed, involve the ending of displays of provocative flags and emblems at work or widening the range of schools contacted. The code of practice may include these and other actions.
  I read the article by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in The Irish Times this morning. He sought to find all sorts of problems and difficulties in the Bill and to pretend that the arrangements would somehow be more restrictive. He tried to make out that the Bill would make more difficult the lives of employers who genuinely sought to operate in a constructive manner. I found the whole article incredible. I profoundly believe that the Bill will lead to greater possibilities, and to more, rather than less, affirmative action.
  The hon. Gentleman even referred to Short Brothers plc. I do not know whether he sought to imply that Shorts would not be able to respond positively to any undertakings that it has given, but I find it extremely mischievous of him even to have introduced such a suggestion into his article. I do not believe that it is true. I believe that the Bill will help constructive co-operation between the Fair Employment Commission and employers

  203
  who sincerely wish to address the problem of inequality. It is mischievous and damaging to Northern Ireland to suggest otherwise.
  Mr. John Hume: Does the Secretary of State accept that affirmative action in employment legislation is not the only affirmative action that is necessary to create fair employment? The best fair employment legislation in the world will not create another job in Strabane. Does he accept that figures produced in the House show that the two constituencies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the highest unemployment are my own constituency of Foyle and Belfast, West? Some of us do not think that that is a coincidence and believe that it is the result of action taken by previous Governments of Northern Ireland to starve those areas of investment. If we are to have fair employment, we need affirmative action that will encourage inward investment into areas that have previously been starved, in addition to good fair employment legislation.
  Mr. King: I want to address the problem of all areas of high unemployment. Some of the most substantial investment has gone into the Du Pont operation, for instance. I know of the considerable expansion of Desmonds and of the other investments that have been made. I am also conscious that Foyle has quite unacceptably high unemployment. I am also very conscious of the problems of trying to improve employment opportunities in west Belfast, given that some of the activities that take place there are singularly unattractive to potential investors but, as I think the hon. Gentleman will concede, that is not to say that we have not been trying. The whole House welcomed the news of the investment in the old De Lorean plant. I leave it to others to determine whether that is in east Lisburn or west Belfast, but there is no doubt that that can contribute significantly to employment opportunities for many in west Belfast.
  I accept the assertion that the creation of jobs must go hand in hand with the legislation if it is to succeed. The Bill will simply not work if we are merely transferring jobs from one community to another, and it must be accompanied by a general improvement in the employment situation.
  Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, although he has been subjected to some carping remarks, some Conservative Members wish to congratulate him on introducing a measure that will genuinely help the people of Northern Ireland in a manner that goes way beyond what many hon. Members have suggested, because the difficulty of obtaining employment on a fair basis lies at the root of many of the present troubles?
  Mr. King: I profoundly agree with my hon. Friend. Of all the measures with which I have been associated, measures to establish fair employment and equality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland are some of the most important.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the withholding of Government grants and public sector contracts from employers who are in breach of any of their major statutory obligations. Disqualification will be determined by the commission, if an employer has been convicted of failure to register or to submit monitoring returns or of
  204
  falure to comply with an order or the tribunal. This will be a very powerful sanction, over and above any other penalties for which the employer may be liable.
  Public sector bodies will be precluded from accepting tenders from disqualified employers and will require any subcontractors not to be disqualified. Northern Ireland Departments will be authorised to withhold financial assistance from employers who have been disqualified by the Commission. That will apply not just to grants but possibly to loans or investment. Those are tough sanctions, but it would be wrong for any employer who deliberately ignores his obligations to receive any such support from Government or public funds.
  I have sought to deal with the main elements of this important Bill. We believe that it will have a real effect in improving employment practices in the Province.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State sounds as if he is beginning to wrap up. Before he resumes his seat, perhaps I can extract some more information from him. I imagine that every right hon. and hon. Member desires fair employment in Northern Ireland: it is not the concern of any individual section of the community. Every section of the community at one time or another has suffered through unfair employment.
  The Secretary of State has said that certain encouragement would be given to ensure that a proper balance would be kept in accordance with the balance in the community. I am the chairman of the board of a leisure centre which employs about 140 people in an area which has a very small Roman Catholic community. Roman Catholic employment in that leisure centre is vastly higher than the percentage of Roman Catholics in the community. Those people were appointed because they were the most capable people for the job. They got their jobs on merit, because of their ability. Is there any suggestion that I should redress the balance by making jobs more available to Protestants to reflect the balance of the community?
  Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on his intervention, he will find the answer. As I said earlier, there has to be good sense in these matters. We cannot talk with absolute precision or lay down a mathematical formula about what should happen. He may have heard me say that a genuine constructive approach is needed. If that is shown, we are halfway there.
  We hope that prospects for jobs will continue to improve as they have in the present year, and that that, and the effect of the legislation, at last will produce real and significant change in the differentials of employment and unemployment. The Bill is very timely. If the United Kingdom economy continues to grow, Northern Ireland probably has the best ever opportunity for a fundamental change in its employment prospects. That is the ideal condition in which to achieve a change in balance. We shall keep the operation of the measures under regular review with the help of the commission, and we shall undertake a major review after five years.
  Of course I am aware of the criticisms of the Bill, on the one hand from those who believe it goes too far and will open up problems and cause ill feeling between employees wnen none previously existed, and on the other hand that it does not go far enough and has been too lenient with employers.

  205
  To the first I say that it is essential for both communities in Northern Ireland that we are and are seen to be a place where there is fairness and equality of opportunity in employment. That is not the case at present, and it cannot be ignored. As for the "not enough" brigade, led by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, they seem to want reverse discrimination, quotas on employers, and the abandonment of the merit principle. That approach has been overwhelmingly rejected not just by employers, but by trade unions, and by the vast majority of people in both communities.
  I believe that the Bill has the right approach. It is a powerful measure that can make a real improvement to the whole life of Northern Ireland. It demonstrates without question our determination to promote real equality of opportunity for all the people in Northern Ireland, and I commend it to the House.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which: weakens existing policies in pursuance of fair employment; fails, in the case of political and religious discrimination, to meet the minimum requirements of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Race Relations Act 1976 by forbidding outreach schemes and training programmes designed to achieve equality in employment; does not cover those working less than 16 hours per week, thus excluding thousands of workers, many of whom are female; weakens the existing remedies available to individuals in obtaining redress against discrimination; fails to impose a positive duty upon public and private sector employers to pursue equality in employment; is equivocal over the issues of contract compliance and grant distribution to employers who refuse to adopt fair employment practices and procedures; fails to meet the minimum requirements for fair employment adumbrated by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and which ignores the key recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, particularly with respect to the question of goals and timetables for the eradiction of discrimination in employment."
  I listened to part of the peroration of the Secretary of State about the great period of expansion that will take place in Northern Ireland. I hope that the 400 people working at Harland and Wolff who received notice today agree with him, despite the fact that steel cutting is no longer to take place at Harland and Wolff.
  Twenty-three years ago today, I took my seat in the House. The same day I joined the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster and enrolled in the Campaign for Social Justice. I mention that to show that I have been concerned with discrimination and inequality in Northern Ireland before and since it became a fashionable issue. From the early days of the civil rights movement, a number of Labour Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), recognised that discrimination in employment was a major grievance which had to be remedied. Otherwise, we knew, the pent-up frustration and anger would lead to an outbreak of discontent. At that time, the Government of the day, unfortunately one formed by the Labour party,
  206
  did not listen. The outbreak occurred and we are living with the consequences of the inadequacies of successive Governments.
  In 1975 a working party chaired by our former colleague Sir William van Straubenzee produced a report which, had it been acted upon, would have achieved real progress. Instead we enacted a watered-down version, the Fair Employment Act 1976. The lack of progress by that Act in reducing the extent of inequality of employment in Northern Ireland has been fully established by the Policy Studies Institute. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the extent of the problem which has to be tackled has been demonstrated by the ratio of Catholic and Protestant male unemployment of 2·5:1, an appalling figure when we consider that the 1976 Act has been in operation for 13 years.
  Mr. Beggs: The figure of 2·5 is often quoted, but I am unaware that there has been a properly researched investigation to prove it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refrain from using that statistic until he can justify it.
  Mr. McNamara: I suggest that for the rest of the debate the hon. Gentleman should usefully employ his time by going to the Library and reading the PSI reports. Those reports were funded by the Government—not a Labour Government, a Catholic Government or a Protestant Government. A non-sectarian Government produced that report and those figures. That is the problem.
  Mr. Barry Porter: It is a liquorice allsorts Government.
  Mr. McNamara: It may well be, but the Government are selling it off to foreigners.
  The PSI research discovered that the Fair Employment Act had little effect on employers' practices. The vast majority of employers interviewed for the PSI study believed that the Act had made little if any impact upon their practices and procedures. Job discrimination was still thought to be justifiable by a considerable number of employers. Informal recruitment and appointment procedures contributed to continuing levels of discrimination. Investigation by the Fair Employment Agency did not often result in the setting up of affirmative action programmes by those employers investigated. Nor did investigations appear to have made any impact beyond that of the individual organisation investigated. Very few establishments were formally monitoring the religious composition of the work force. Very few establishments were carrying out any equal opportunity measures.
  On the basis of the PSI reports, and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report, I had been looking forward to welcoming the Government's Bill as a significant step towards the resolution of that historic and well-founded grievance. In May 1988 I cautiously welcomed the publication of the White Paper on fair employment. I welcomed a number of the aspects of the White Paper as representing substantial progress: the introduction of contract compliance, the requirement to monitor, the prohibition of indirect discrimination, and, although I recognise there is controversy over this matter, the transfer of individual complaints to a specialist division of the industrial tribunals.
  To that extent, I recognise that the White Paper is a significant advance on previous legislation. However, I welcomed it cautiously. I made it clear at the time that

  207
  whether the Government would be successful in reducing substantially the current inequalities between the two communities in terms of employment depended on the detail of the legislation that emerged. In particular, I stressed that the bench mark against which the Bill would be judged would be the report of the Secretary of State's Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights published in September 1987.
  The SACHR report was the result of a remarkable concensus among the commission's members, who included the head of the Northern Ireland CBI, the secretary of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the head of the Fair Employment Agency, legal experts, business men, academics and others broadly representative of informed opinion in Northern Ireland.
  Unlike the brief and superficial dissenting view, the report made 123 recommendations on action needed to promote equality of opportunity. They were not a shopping list of desirable items, some to be taken from the shelf and others to be left there; they were to be taken as a whole. They constituted a coherent strategy. Remove one part of it and the rest is weakened. It is against those recommendations that we can assess the extent to which the Government have failed to deal with the problem.
  The most important of the Bill's many defects is its treatment of affirmative action. It was the view of the van Straubenzee committee, of SACHR and of the Labour party that employers must be permitted and encouraged to adopt religion-specific programmes to remedy imbalances in their work forces. If they do not, or if the legal position is so unclear that they are discouraged from doing so, the legislation, I regret, will not succeed. Without affirmative action, the historic patterns of inequality cannot be changed.
  There are two main problems with the Bill's affirmative action provisions. First, affirmative action is defined as meaning practices which secure "fair participation" by the two communities in Northern Ireland. That is meaningless because the Bill does not say what is fair. Nor, despite what the Secretary of State said, does it lay down any criteria by which participation could be claimed to be fair. Nor, indeed, if it appeared in a code of practice, would that be enforceable and ensure what was fair. It would be open to any tribunal to impose its own view of what was fair, even that were at odds with equality.
  Does one assess fairness in terms of selection procedures or the composition of the work force; in terms of both or of neither? That uncertainty will at best breed litigation. At worst, employers will avoid legal controversy by doing little. [Interruption.] I give way to the Under-Secretary of State.
  Incidentally—
  Mr. Barry Porter: What was all that about?
  Mr. McNamara: The Under-Secretary of State disagreed with me and I, being a polite person, was prepared to give way.
  The definition of fair employment is not the one that the Secretary of State included in the White Paper, which instead defined it as action taken to provide a more representative distribution of employment in the work force. What we have in the Bill is even less than the definition that we had in the White Paper.
  208
  The second main problem with the Bill's approach to affirmative action is that neither the provisions allowing limited affirmative action nor the provisions empowering the Fair Employment Commission to require employers to engage in affirmative action are treated as exceptions to the duty not to discriminate directly or indirectly on religious grounds. Without such an exception, the duty not to discriminate takes precedence and the ability to take affirmative action is, to that extent, restricted.
  The consequences of that approach will be disastrous. The Fair Employment Agency has in the past advocated, and on occasion required, types of affirmative action which might have been challenged successfully under the existing Act. For instance, the recommendations made by the Fair Employment Agency about training programmes for female staff in clearing banks in order to ensure fair representation of Catholics in senior grades would be of doubtful propriety. It was to be hoped that the legality of such measures would be put beyond doubt by the new legislation.
  However, instead of resolving the uncertainty in favour of legalising the types of measures currently advocated by the agency, the Bill substantially increases the chance that they will be found to be unlawful. A number of measures currently advocated by the Fair Employment Agency are called into question, a point to which my hon. Friend from Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will no doubt return if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill also renders suspect a number of measures that are clearly lawful under the existing legislation. Measures which have the effect of increasing the chances of under-represented groups can now be challenged for the first time. For example, an employer who gives preference for a job to someone who has been unemployed for a considerable time can now be challenged on the basis of indirect discrimination because that has the effect of disproportionately advantaging the members of the minority community. The employer would have to show that that practice was
  "justifiable irrespective of religious belief".
  The approach taken in the Bill is also incompatible with existing legislation in other areas of anti-discrimination law. Race and sex discrimination law in Great Britain enables employers to engage in equivalent types of affirmative action which the Bill would make unlawful. Employers are permitted to encourage members of under-represented racial groups under section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976, or of a gender group under section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to apply for jobs and to provide specially targeted race-specific and gender-specific training. But under the Bill there is to be no religious-specific training. Indeed, last year, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 was amended by the Government to make it easier for employers to engage in affirmative action to the benefit of women, which they will now make illegal in the context of religion.
  As if that were not bad enough, the absence of an exemption for affirmative action under the Bill jeopardises existing lawful affirmative action under the sex discrimination order. Certain affirmative action measures designed to improve the representation of women in the work force may also have the effect of benefiting a greater proportion of, for instance, Catholics than Protestants, or Protestants than Catholics. The Fair Employment Agency has recognised that in its report on the investigation into the

  209
  Northern Ireland Civil Service. However, under the Bill such affirmative action for women could be rendered unlawful. Indeed, there is some evidence that clause 50 is in breach of the EC equal treatment directive. I find it amazing that the Government could have been so ill advised as to present their proposals on affirmative action to the House.
  The effect of the highly restrictive, internally inconsistent and incompetent approach to affirmative action in the Bill is of considerable importance to industry in Northern Ireland.
  The legal uncertainty over the scope of lawful affirmative action in Northern Ireland is already generating great confusion among employers. Some employers are willing to redress the inequality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. Research conducted by the Policy Studies Institute found that a substantial number of employers would favour special recruitment drives to attract members of the minority community when they are under-represented in employment. That could have a significant effect when one considers that 100,000 jobs change hands in Northern Ireland every year.
  There was also considerable support among employers for special training programmes to increase the representation of the minority community in jobs where they are currently under-represented. Yet those measures will not be made unlawful. The Bill will cut the feet from under progressive employers, and it is patently unfair to them. The Secretary of State may disagree, but if it is religious-specific, it is illegal.
  Nor should we forget that, whether we like it or not, there is an important north American dimension to the issue. As it happens, I do not like it. The Government's proposals would be taken more seriously if they had acted of their own free will rather than waited until international and domestic pressure forced them to legislate. I for one find it depressing and distasteful that international pressure should be necessary to oblige the Government to take action to uphold such a basic human right as equality of opportunity in employment.
  The Bill will do nothing to reduce the possibility of American disinvestment. I am opposed to disinvestment. It would be a disaster for the Northern Ireland economy. Far from that being a mischievous statement, the Secretary of State knows that, ever since I had the honour of speaking on behalf of the Labour party on this issue, I have been concerned about what has been happening in north America. If disinvestment occurs, much of the responsibility will lie with the Government and their failure to seize the opportunity presented by the Bill. The extent to which the Bill constrains employers from taking affirmative action will increase the problems of Northern Ireland employees with commercial and investment links to the United States. There is a considerable risk of escalation in the conflict between the United States requirements of what these employers should be doing and what they would be permitted to do lawfully in Northern Ireland.
  The first casualty could be one of the Province's major employers, Shorts. If the Minister thinks that I was being mischievous about this, let us consider the facts. If the Bill as drafted becomes law, it is unlikely that Shorts will be able to fulfil its undertakings to the United States
  210
  Department of the Army. I think the Secretary of State is shaking his head in disagreement. Let us consider religious-specific training. I happen to have the agreement with me. It is signed by Mr. Stone in his letter about what Mr. McNulty had said. Mr. Stone was the Under-Secretary of the Army. He wrote:
  "The company will design and implement what in the United States would be termed a set-aside".
  That is specific for Catholics. It is illegal.
  "Shorts Bros. presently has a total of approximately 7,000 workers. Turnover rate is about 3 per cent. per year, meaning that the company hires about 350 new employees per year. As a baseline for 1988 the company expects to achieve a rate of 17·5 per cent. for Catholic new hires in relation to total knew hires. In 1989 the goal will be to achieve a rate of 25 per cent., and in 1990 the goal will be to achieve a rate of 35 per cent."
  Shorts has also undertaken to the Fair Employment Agency to approach Catholic schools to encourage more applications from Catholics. These are specific and religiously designed affirmative programmes. These committments will be unlawful under the Bill.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. The Bill does not preclude any of the legitimate outreach measures of the kind that Shorts and other good employers have already introduced. The hon. Gentleman may not like to be corrected, but I am sure he will welcome that reassurance.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister say specifically that firms may recruit percentages of Catholics in new hirings: that the set-aside as agreed in the Shorts agreement will be legal under the Bill in the terms in which it was agreed; and that Shorts may go to Catholic schools to encourage people to train? If he is prepared to give those three undertakings, he is then saying that there is specific recruitment for Catholics on a religious basis. On that ground, those of us who read the Bill and did not find that in it will be delighted to know that it is included.
  On the other hand, the measures agreed by Shorts are seen by many as a classic example of the type of affirmative action that is needed to rectify historical inequalities in relation to the Bill. The prospects of other firms taking similar action are seriously diminished.
  Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a difficulty in understanding the Bill and deciding whether it is merely a sham or has the teeth that he wants it to have is that all such questions are left to the commission? We in this House are not allowed to decide what is discrimination or how it shall be enforced. Wide discretion is given to the commission: it may or may not do the things that he desires.
  Mr. McNamara: I shall be coming to that point later. There are certain actions which the commission would be precluded from taking, and clause 50 and the clauses relating to training, outreach and so on will catch Shorts and what that company has been doing.
  The same provisions making Shorts' undertakings unlawful would have a similar effect on a significant element of a Bill introduced into the United States House of Representatives by Congressman Donnelly. It would be in conflict with the law of Northern Ireland if it and the Bill now before this House were adopted in their current forms, because clause 3 of Congressman Donnelly's Bill would reduce tax credits for United States firms operating in Northern Ireland which failed to take certain steps,

  211
  including the introduction of affirmative programmes designed to give under-represented groups better access to employment and training opportunities.
  If the measure now before this House inhibits affirmative action to the extent that American employers cannot comply with the provisions of United States law, that will be yet more disincentive to the establishment and expansion of American-owned firms in Northern Ireland.
  But, not content with turning the clock back with regard to affirmative action, the Bill also damages the rights of individuals to seek redress. It reduces the existing rights of those discriminated against compared with their rights under the existing Fair Employment Act. There are two major steps backwards. First, the level of damages is reduced. The new maximum will be £8,500, which falls well short of what the Fair Employment Agency has been awarding and negotiating on behalf of individuals under the existing Act. Secondly, the provisions requiring an employer to engage, re-engage or reinstate a victim of discrimination will now be repealed.
  In other words, the Bill not only involves a retreat from existing remedies and is a repudiation of the work of the standing advisory commission; it also involves a retreat from the proposals published in the Government's own consultative document and in the White Paper.
  In the consultative document, for example, the Government proposed the adoption of a form of contract compliance similar to that adopted in the United States. Under that system, contract compliance has the function of imposing on a contractor a number of "best practice" requirements which are additional to those imposed on the mass of employers directly under the rest of the legislation.
  The Bill adopts a much more limited approach to contract compliance. Under the Bill, contract compliance has a more limited function. Instead of being a positive measure designed to promote the use of best practices in fair employment, it will serve merely as a last resort sanction to be used on those employers who do not comply with the minimum standards which the legislation imposes on the mass of employers. It has turned the matter upside down. This is an important retreat both from the Department of Economic Development's consultative paper proposals and from the standing advisory commission.
  The consultative document also promised to introduce an explicit legal duty on public sector employers to provide equality of opportunity. Not only has that proposal vanished, but the Bill provides weaker sanctions against recalcitrant public employers than it does against private sector employers. When we consider that 13 local authorities have refused to sign the existing fair employment declaration and that public bodies have been the subject of adverse reports from the Fair Employment Agency, the weakness of the Bill is even more apparent.
  The Bill also contains a series of retreats from proposals set out in the White Paper. I have mentioned one already—the affirmative action provisions—but there are more. The White Paper promised to help the individual by providing a questionnaire procedure to ease the task of gathering evidence faced by individuals complaining of discrimination. That is not included in the Bill.
  The concept of goals and timetables for the reduction of inequality has also mysteriously disappeared during the preparation of the Bill. It is no good putting that in a code of practice which is not enforceable. The White Paper promised to make available to hon. Members a draft code
  212
  of practice at the same time as the Bill was being considered. We do not have that code of practice. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) pointed out, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. That is what it amounts to. We do not have the evidence to reach some of the conclusions that the Secretary of State would like us to reach. That evidence is not in the Bill and we do not have the code.
  Much of what should be in the backbone of the Bill is relegated to the status of secondary legislation. Not only has the code not appeared, but in a number of crucial areas of the Bill there is a complete lack of detail on which to form an assessment of the Government's proposals. Much of the Bill merely empowers the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development to draw up regulations and orders in the future, after the Bill has become law.
  I took the same view as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on the right to silence issue and the policies that were involved with that. If we a re not enabled to amend the legislation, we are weakening the power of the House because we either accept or reject the lot. In several major clauses of the Bill the details are to be determined in regulations. These are significant areas, such as monitoring, contract compliance and the procedures of the fair employment tribunal. When they emerge, these regulations will not be subject to the full parliamentary scrutiny that the Bill will attract. If the use of affirmative action can be so signally mishandled when it is clear that it will be subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny, how much confidence can we have in the use by the Department of those delegated powers when only limited scrutiny, without the power of amendment, is possible?
  It is a contempt of the House that the Government should expect us to consider the Bill in the absence of detail about what the code and regulations will contain. The absence of such detail will effectively stifle proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. We should remember that the Northern Ireland Office has considerably more autonomy with regard to parliamentary scrutiny than its British counterpart.
  There are two possible reasons why the Government may have chosen this course of action. One is that they do not want effective scrutiny of the Bill. The second possibility, which is perhaps closer to the truth, is that the Government have not decided the details of the measures, even at this late stage, and even in the central areas of monitoring and contract compliance. We have no evidence to assure us that the Department of Economic Development, that poacher now turned gamekeeper, is seriously committed to bringing forth tough measures to provide full equality of opportunity. Nor do we believe that it is sufficiently competent to work through the detail, even if it has the will to do so. How else can we explain a situation where key provisions of the Bill have such bizarre unintended effects as to risk a breach of the European laws, and where such a measure came to be printed and put before the House?
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Member give his assessment, on behalf of the Labour party, of the workings of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976? My right hon. Friend either could not or would not tell the House about it. If it was obvious by 1985 that the 1976 Act was not working and that under the Anglo-Irish Agreement Her Majesty's Government had this matter brought to their

  213
  attention, most kindly, by the Americans, perhaps the legislation would have been brought forward a little sooner. I wonder why something so important has been so delayed.
  Mr. McNamara: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I, too, wonder why it has been delayed. He is perhaps giving too much credit to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I believe that what so wonderfully concentrated the mind of the Government on this matter was the MacBride campaign in north America. All the hon. Gentleman has to do is look at the incidence and mounting of the MacBride campaign, how state by state fell to it, and how the money and reources, of which the Fair Employment Commission had been starved, suddenly increased as the momentum of that campaign increased. That is a good sign of the origin of some of the pressure upon the Government. That is why I find it distasteful. This is a human rights matter which has been tackled by a British Government who seized the opportunity when they saw some of the difficulties under which the Fair Employment Commission was labouring. Those difficulties arose because it was starved of funds until the time of the MacBride campaign.
  I believe that the Government would have been better employed by saying to the Americans, especially when they had the report from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, "This statement contains everything, and more, that you could ever want in your campaigning. It will not be voluntary and will cover not just north American firms but the whole gamut of employers and all investments. We will legislate on that and ensure that your campaign is as nothing." Unfortunately, as the Secretary of State said, he has failed to implement the spirit and the letter of the SACHR report. Because of that, MacBride will not go away, and will continue to spread like measles across the United States.
  I believe that, if the Government are serious about fair employment, they should demonstrate their commitment by ensuring that responsibility for the implementation of the legislation should be at the highest level, in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office. We shall be tabling amendments to that effect in Committee. We do not believe it should have been left to the Department of Economic Development and the Minister responsible for industry because of the conflicts of interest.
  We also believe that there must be effective monitoring of the new legislation, and a clear goal and a target for assessing its progress. The Secretary of State should ensure that an adequate administrative structure exists within his own Department to enable him to do that. Legislation alone is not sufficient.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has already reported on how the inward investment programme is meeting this problem. Existing Government programmes and future policy development must also take more fully into account the equality of opportunity dimension, which clearly was not taken into account in the past. The Government have brought forward no effective proposals to ensure that this will happen in future.
  Unfortunately, the defects identified above are accompanied by a series of flaws, which will be dealt with
  214
  in greater depth in Committee. Some of them must be mentioned now, including, first, the most important section 42 national security exemption. The failure to provide clearly for independent scrutiny of the national security exemption is a glaring gap in the Government's proposal.
  Let me give an instructive and farcical case to show the way in which section 42 has worked. A member of my union, a scaffolder, was employed by the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at Coolkeeragh power station near Derry. He then sought to transfer and get employment at Ballylumford power station. He was turned down. When he asked the Fair Employment Agency to investigate it, a section 42 order was issued to halt the investigation. He could not be employed there on the ground of national security. That was a very sensible decision to take, because in the meantime the scaffolder had been cleared to work at the Army headquarters in Lisburn, right opposite the GOC's headquarters. So much for section 42 and the way it has been used to hide discrimination.
  The exclusion of part-time employees from the monitoring provision of those who work for 16 hours a week is another glaring exemption, for this reason among others. Some of them are among the poorest and most dispossessed Catholics and Protestants. The majority of them work for fewer than 16 hours a week, and many are women. The significance of this fact is all the greater when one considers that the eastern health and social board has 30,000 employees, 13,000 of whom are part-timers who will be excluded. The majority of them are women struggling to bring up their families. Whichever community they come from, they will not be covered by this provision.
  There are in addition restrictions on the monitoring of applications, which is rather like the counting of green and orange trees instead of seeing what they can be used for to get some effective affirmative action. There is, too, the compromising of the independence of the Fair Employment Commission.
  I regret to say that the Labour party cannot welcome this seriously flawed Bill. At a conservative estimate, it fails to meet more than 60 per cent. of the recommendations of the standing advisory commission's report. It ignores substantially the recommendation of the Fair Employment Agency and the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. In significant respects, it is less effective and far-reaching than the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act that it replaces, and it is even a retreat from the commitments in the less than detailed White Paper of last year. No doubt, in time, we shall discover what led the Government to back down from their commitments. Whoever is responsible has a lot to answer for. People will have to live with the consequences of the failure to create equality of opportunity.
  If the Bill is enacted in its present form, it will set the clock back. For the reasons that I have enumerated, the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment. If it is defeated, we shall vote against giving the Bill a Second Reading. We shall seek to amend the Bill in Committee. Our motive is to ensure that the eventual legislation will achieve the objective of fair employment.
  The Government are out of step, and unfortunately guided by considerations other than those which deserve the most urgent attention. The Labour party has been, and will continue to be, guided on this issue by the moderate and reasonable proposals that have been put forward by

  215
  the standing advisory commission, the Fair Employment Commission and the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. They will be our three bench marks. Our concerns are also shared by the SDLP, as is apparent from the reasoned amendment that its Members have tabled.
  We are determined to ensure that the effects of the Bill are clearly and unequivocally brought to the Government's attention. There is still time for them to see sense. We are genuinely and sincerely anxious that they should do so. The Labour party believes, and is indeed convinced, that failure to tackle the massive inequalities between Catholics and Protestants will drive away north American investment, which is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland. That is why we wish to see it.
  Today we should have been debating a measure which would offer hope to the poor and dispossessed in Northern Ireland that for them the constitutional road to reform could deliver tangible results. Beyond them there are the others who suffer the consequences of political instability and violence, resulting from deprivation and inequalities. Despite extensive research and analysis of the massive problem of structural inequality in employment, and expert advice on the responses needed to tackle that problem, the Government have chosen to present the House with a flawed and patently ineffective Bill. All those placing their faith, as I do, in constitutional methods of achieving social justice will be gravely disappointed.
  We hope that when the Bill comes to the House for Third Reading it will live up to its proud title of fair employment in Northern Ireland. For the Government it is still not too late to amend many of the proposals. We hope that they will do so in the interests of fair employment, of equity and of the individuals who live in the Six Counties.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I listened attentively to the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to his replies to interventions from the few hon. Friends who were sitting behind him. I remain totally unconvinced about the merits of this legislation. Indeed, it speaks eloquently of the Bill that at any one time at most five Tory Back Benchers had bothered to come into the Chamber to listen to their right hon. Friend and to show their support for the Bill.
  Mr. Budgen: Support?
  Mr. Kilfedder: It is already being pointed out to me that at least one of those five hon. Members detests the Bill. It is remarkable in a Parliament with such a tremendous Tory majority so few Tory Back Benchers should be present in the Chamber. Where are they? It is like the debate we had last week on Northern Ireland, when very few hon. Members seemed to be interested in the legislation under discussion on that occasion.
  The Secretary of State might have strengthened what he described as the moral case for the Bill if he had announced that the Government intended to introduce similar legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom to combat religious, racial and political discrimination. Hon. Members should consider this carefully. I refer the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, whether they are here to support or to criticise this awful legislation, to an article in The Times today by the distinguished chairman of the Runnymede Trust, Dr. E. J. B. Rose. He stated:
  216
  "The greatest single contribution this government could make to improve race relations would be to attack black unemployment, which is twice as high as the rate for whites."
  He went on to offer cogent reasons why there should be such legislation, but there has not been a word from the Government about that.
  Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is often more observant of American opinion than I am. Has he any information about whether the Americans have been advising the Government on the necessity of bringing forward similar legislation in the west midlands? As the Americans are so extraordinarily generous in the advice that they volunteer to us, they may have a view about the introduction of such legislation in England.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I think that American politicians view this country as a place which has not only lost an empire but needs direction from the great and brilliant minds of Washington, who are no doubt helping the Government as much as possible—just as the politicians from the Irish Republic are guiding the hand of the Government through the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  I have the honour to represent the constituency of North Down where there is no complaint about religious discrimination. I and my constituents are unequivocally and totally opposed to religious discrimination of any kind in employment, housing or any other aspect of life. There is a growing anxiety among employees on the shop floor and in offices who have received individual notices demanding bluntly that the employee should state his or her religion. This creates grave disquiet among people who have worked loyally for firms for many years. They fear, no doubt rightly, that the hand of bureaucracy will be upon their firm and that in time they may find themselves out of their jobs.
  The Bill is divisive in an area such as mine—I speak of no other area, as I know that there are problems in other parts of Northern Ireland—where good relations have existed between Protestants and Roman Catholics for a long time. I do not wish to see division, but I fear that the Bill will lead to increased division.
  Mr. Marlow: Is there not a possibility—to put it no higher—that this confidential personal information could find its way, sadly, into the hands of an Opposition politician who would only too avidly give it full media coverage and all the confidentiality would be lost?
  Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that, but I will not speculate. All I can say is that those notices, which imply that unless the information is supplied the person will be out of a job, will create a state of affairs which will not help good community relations in North Down. I hope that I shall be proved wrong as I wish to see good community relations maintained. The future of Northern Ireland lies in Protestants and Roman Cotholics coming together—that is the way forward—but this legislation will not contribute anything to that process.
  I should have thought that it was in the hands of the Government to do something to ease the position. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) referred to Strabane. I do not know whether he mentioned the percentage of unemployment there, but it is appallingly high. A few months ago I suggested to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland Members of all political opinions should go to America to appeal to American business men to set up factories in areas such as

  217
  Strabane, West Belfast or anywhere else where they would help to end the misery of the dole queue. That suggestion was not taken up. It is in the hands of the Government to create employment but, as the shadow spokesman the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has already told us, some 450 people in Harland and Wolff have already received their notice. The Government, by their policies, are driving people out of jobs.
  Through this legislation, the Government are branding the Protestant people of Northern Ireland as religious bigots, in the eyes of Great Britain and throughout the world. I reject the charge. I believe that whatever legislation is brought forward should be designed to help bring the people together, providing jobs and more and better homes.
  I am keeping my remarks brief to allow every hon. Member to participate—especially the Secretary of State's colleagues, whose opinions I am sure that he is anxious to hear. As an elected representative, I face three options. First, I could vote against the Bill as being a bad Bill on any number of grounds, some of them enumerated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who pointed out serious flaws. To vote against it, however, would falsely imply that I was against fair employment, which would be contrary to my political beliefs.
  Secondly, I could vote in favour of the Bill, but that would imply that I concurred with the enemies of loyalist Ulster, who are delighted to have more ammunition to attack that part of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members may rest assured that people in the United States will say that the Government have been forced to bring in this legislation to deal with an intolerable situation.
  I notice that the Secretary of State is laughing at the plight of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Tom King: Don't be such an idiot.
  Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman says that I should not be such an idiot. I am proud to have any nasty remark made to me by him, because I know that if the people of Ulster have to judge between him and me they will not go through the barbed wire at Stormont castle to applaud him. They can come to my home, as they do, and tell me that I am right, on this as on other occasions.
  The Secretary of State may laugh, but the people of Ulster have had any number of Secretaries of State. Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland come and go, but they do not affect the lives of ordinary people much because they do not live in the community and are not part of it, and when they go they are forgotten.
  My final option is to abstain, and on occasions such as this I regret that there is no Lobby where I can register my total opposition to this pathetic piece of legislation.
  6.42 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: You were not present, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that during Question Time members of the minority parties asked their questions and then left. As a member of such a party, I stayed for the whole of Question Time and am still here. When an hon. Member has been called, however, he sometimes has to go out on other business. Which would be the more heinous—to do that, or to absent oneself from
  218
  a debate and then roll in to obey the Whips without having listened to the arguments or considered the impact of a Bill on the people whom it concerns?
  I believe in fair employment. I gave evidence before the van Straubenzee committee. When asked my view on discrimination I said that it was biblical, and I stand by that:
  "do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."
  If anyone present in this gathering claims that he does not discriminate, he condemns himself. Each of us must discriminate, whether in choosing a hat, a holiday or even, sometimes, a job.
  Mr. Gow: Or a wife.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Yes—and some folk would have been wise to exercise more discrimination.
  With fair employment, the merit principle must be paramount. Unfortunately, in the case of Northern Ireland, I am not convinced that that is so. Replying to a question from me on 3 May, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that he was not prepared to accept the merit principle in Northern Ireland. He dismissed our point by saying:
  "while the system is appropriate in Northern Ireland, we see no reason to extend it to the mainland."—[Official Report, 3 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 713.]
  I had said, as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has said, that if fair employment measures were needed in Northern Ireland they were also needed in Great Britain.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I do not seek to protect only the Scots. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disturbing to find evidence of religious discrimination in Civil Service organisations and in nationalised companies on the mainland? If the legislation is good enough for Northern Ireland, despite all the difficulties, Ministers should at least investigate religious discrimination on the mainland, especially in the public sector.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will deal with his point more broadly in a moment.
  As I made plain in a letter to the Prime Minister on 17 May last year, I stand by the merit principle. I also said:
  "It is my belief that you have been forced to jettison your long-held view that employment should be by merit, and that a need to appease republican sentiment in Eire, the USA and elsewhere, has led to you allowing other considerations to determine employment policy in Northern Ireland."
  Why do I say that the legislation should be applied to Great Britain? On 15 March 1988, a headline in The Independent read:
  "Blacks' work prospects `no better than 20 years ago'"
  The paper claimed in a headline the following day:
  "Black teachers 'face jobs prejudice
  I find a major discrepancy in the answers given to me by the Minister for the Civil Service about employment opportunities. For example, in the Cabinet Office, which should be setting us an example, 451 top civil servants' grades show only four from the ethnic minorities. In the Home Office, only 563 of the top 4,278 employees are women.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I entirely agree that we need more effective action in Great Britain to deal with discrimination, and we shall welcome the hon.

  219
  Gentleman's support when the time comes to debate that. Is he suggesting, however, that it follows from that that there is no need to deal with discrimination in Northern Ireland?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ability to listen and to reason, but I did not say that. I said that I believed that the legislation should extend to the United Kingdom if it is needed in Northern Ireland on the grounds that we claimed for it. The same prima facie grounds exist in Great Britain as are set out for Northern Ireland. I am prepared to argue that perceptions are not necessarily accurate, because there are other reasons why people are employed beyond the fact of their colour, religion or sex—, I should like to think so.
  I notice a conflict between this Bill and the recently passed Local Government Act. I query the logic of such a Bill. The Secretary of State referred to contract compliance and recently introduced legislation which outlawed councils in Great Britain from using contract compliance lists and questions to promote their policies. Yet the Government are introducing this for the private sector in Northern Ireland.
  One way of determining religious affiliations in Northern Ireland has developed in relation to the schools of primary choice. As a result, there are Protestants in Northern Ireland who, for reasons best known to themselves, have attended Roman Catholic schools, and Roman Catholics who have attended controlled sector schools. They are perceived as Roman Catholics or Protestants according to the school that they attend regardless of their religion.
  I recently discovered that an alleged spokesman for the Fair Employment Agency had claimed that many Shi'ite Moslems worked for Belfast council. I say "alleged spokesman" because the figures have not been released—Belfast council has not forwarded the report to the agency.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will realise that perception can be wrong. I read a book in which he was described as the Protestant spokesman of the Labour party. In one of Alistair Maclean's books—
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am renowned for my impartiality on all these issues.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I should like to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he showed his pedigree when he set out his arguments against the Bill earlier today. Impartiality is not one of his noteworthy points.
  Alastair Maclean reveals the problem of perception when he writes about rifles for the Protestant IRA. Anyone who seeks to provide legislation to govern events in Northern Ireland should do so on sounder grounds than perceptions.
  The basic assumption underlying the Bill is that, if there is an imbalance between the numbers of Roman Catholic and Protestants who are unemployed, the cause is always and exclusively religious discrimination on the part of employers. A bar owner in Sandy Row was approached by a man who said, "I am an Orange man, can I have a job?" The answer was, "I don't care if you are a black man—I am looking for a barman". A sensible employer will
  220
  always employ the person who is best equipped and suited for the job. If he employed people purely on the grounds of religion, he would soon be out of business.
  No doubt imbalances exist, but I query the accuracy of the figures cited even on the authority of the Policy Studies Institute. I do not doubt that there are more unemployed Roman Catholics than Protestants, but it is not proven that religious discrimination is the sole or even the main cause. If I am right, the Bill will not be capable of putting matters right. It will merely build up expectations that cannot be fulfilled and, in the process, generate more bitterness.
  Ms. Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not believe that the high levels of unemployment among Catholics are due to religious discrimination. We should all be interested to hear him outline in general rather than anecdotal terms the real reasons for unemployment among Catholics in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I hope to come to that if I have time.
  On 27 January, the Irish News—not a Unionist paper—contained the headline:
  "Protestant graduates find jobs come easier."
  That partially answers the hon. Lady's question, but the paper gives the answer. It is found in a survey conducted by two academics, one in the university of Ulster and the other in Queen's university—both of which have from time to time provided work for the Fair Employment Agency. The survey shows that of 2,000 graduates—56 per cent. Protestant and 43 per cent. Catholic—who started their courses in 1985, the two groups opted for contrasting higher education courses, which explains the significant difference in the type of work that they later pursued. The Protestants mainly embarked on courses in science, technology and health science studies; the others showed a preference for arts, humanities and the social sciences. My point is that the choices that people make—this was mentioned in Question Time today—will have an impact on their ultimate jobs and economic opportunities.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman deploying the argument usually applied to school education—that Protestant children tend to receive one sort of education and Catholic children another? Does that continue through into higher education, so that one group is equipped to do one set of tasks and another group to do a different set?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: That is not necessarily my argument. I am dealing specifically with higher qualifications. Graduates are a particular group. However, if the hon. Gentleman investigates the matter he may discover that there is a considerable difference of emphasis at different levels. I quoted the article at length to make that point.
  To answer the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) further, the most striking example of the discrepancies that affect unemployment is to be found in the security forces and in firms that provide them with services. The report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, dealing with fair employment, stated:
  "A further contributory factor to the continuing differences in employment and unemployment is the reluctance of many Catholics to take up employment

  221
  opportunities in the police and other security services. These forms of employment currently provide up to 30,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, amounting to more than 5 per cent. of total employment, an are heavily dominated by Protestants. It is clear that greater equality in the distribution of these jobs would make a significant contribution to reducing differentials in employment or unemployment."
  The Opposition have already called that report in evidence this evening.
  No one would argue that the employment pattern in this area is due to religious discrimination on the part of the Northern Ireland police authority or the Ministry of Defence. I have no doubt that the RUC and the UDR would be delighted to get more Catholics to join. I pay tribute, as I have done in the past, to the members of the Roman Catholic community who have served in those forces and have made supreme sacrifices as a result of their loyalty to the country of which they are citizens.
  Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because there is no open encouragement, either from the politicians who represent the nationalist community or from their church leaders, to join the RUC and security forces, employment opportunities are being lost?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with my hon. Friend on that. If the jobs were taken up, between 10,000 and 15,000 jobs would go to Roman Catholics which would normally go by default to Protestants. It has been said that there are two and a half times more Catholic males unemployed than Protestant males. That may be so, but the problem is that we can find no evidence to support it. To the best of my knowledge, that statistic is not based on a monitoring exercise of the unemployed. So far as I know, there are no precise statistics of Roman Catholic and Protestant unemployment or of the religious breakdown of the total economically active. Table 3.2 of the SACHR Report estimates the number of Roman Catholics unemployed as between 40,000 and 50,000 out of a total of 140,000 to 160,000 economically active Roman Catholic males. It estimates that there are 25,000 to 35,000 unemployed Protestant males out of a total of 240,000 to 260,000 economically active Protestant males. Those figures are based on the 1981 census and I presume that the margins of error arise from the fact that 19 per cent. of people refused to give their religion in their census returns. The figures, too, are obviously well out of date. I cite those figures to show that our knowledge of the actual number unemployed on religious grounds is less than perfect. I am convinced that our knowledge of the reason why a differential exists between the two groups is less precise. If, as I suspect, that reason has in large measure nothing to do with religious discrimination by employers, supporters of the Bill will be disappointed when it fails to erode the differential significance.
  Ms. Abbott: Since my first intervention, I have been trying to follow the thread of the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but he seems to be making two divergent points. On the one hand, he says that the figures are wrong, and that is why a huge level of Catholic unemployment has been shown. On the other, he appears to be arguing that Catholics tend to have a preference for studying arts subjects and will not join the police force. With the greatest respect, a preference for the arts and the classics, and a reluctance to join the police force, would
  222
  not on their own account for the fact that two and a half times more Catholics are unemployed than Protestants. Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate his argument a little further?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I should love to elaborate on my argument. I have a fair bit of material and if I had your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could go on until 10 o'clock, although I reckon that the Whips would be sending me notes telling me to stop at such and such a time. I have made the point, and I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that I want to be concise. I have argued that the grounds for differences in unemployment are not necessarily those of religion. I have made the point that academic studies, personal preferences, job opportunities and such like have an effect on unemployment. I believe, however, that, above all, the unwillingness of leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and the SDLP to give a lead to people to join the security forces has added to the large number of Roman Catholics who could be in work but are not.
  Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend accept that the statistics that have been used as the basis for much of the argument about there being two and a half times more Catholics unemployed than Protestants are part of the propaganda of the Provisional IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein? Those statistics have not been proved, and I should be glad to hear my hon. Friend prove them. They have been trotted out as though they were true by hon. Members in all parts of the House without any proof.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In answer to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), I was about to state that I am questioning the validity and accuracy of the figures.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I give the hon. Gentleman the information that he requires before he goes on to his next point?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: If the hon. Gentleman can give me authentic information, and tell me where the statistics have come from, I shall be happy to give way.
  Mr. McGrady: The statistics are contained in table 3, paragraph 1 of the report of the independent Policy Studies Institute dated 1987. The source is "Equality and Inequality in Northern Ireland: Employment and Unemployment 1983–85". It states that there are 14·9 per cent. unemployed male Protestants and 35·1 per cent. unemployed male Catholics, which is 2·4 times as high. There are 10·2 per cent. unemployed Protestant women and 15·8 per cent. umemployed Catholic women—one and a half times as high.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am not arguing about where the figures came from. I have actually referred to those figures. I said that we had not yet had evidence of how the statistics were obtained. I believe that figures often lie as well as liars figure.
  On the question of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome, I understand that clause 12(2)(a) will empower the commission to issue directions to employers to take whatever action the commission deems to be reasonable to promote equality of opportunity. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate when it would be appropriate for the commission to issue such directions. In

  223
  other words, in what circumstances is it reasonable to conclude that equality of opportunity is not being afforded by an employer and remedial action is called for? Our only guide on this matter is the past behaviour of the Fair Employment Agency which is due to be transformed, under the Bill, into the Fair Employment Commission.
  I believe that the practice of the Fair Employment Agency in past investigations of employment patterns has left a great deal to be desired. To the best of my knowledge, the Fair Employment Agency has always taken any divergence between the religious balance in a work force and that in the catchment area of the firm to be conclusive proof of the failure of the employer to afford equality of opportunity. In other words, if the firm's work force does not reflect exactly the religious balance of the working population in the catchment area, the employer is inevitably found guilty of discrimination. No other explanation is allowed.
  That conclusion is arrived at despite the clear statement in the Department of Economic Development guide, which states in paragraph 3.3:
  "Equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome. Individuals have different qualifications, ability and potential ability. What is important is that everyone is given the same chance to offer their talents to prospective employers."
  The guide says in paragraph 4.39:
  "the fact that the proportion of a religious grouping in a workforce (or part of a workforce) is lower than the proportion of that grouping in the catchment area does not necessarily imply malpractice."
  I stand to be corrected, but so far as I am aware the Fair Employment Agency has always assumed that if a religious grouping is under-represented, malpractice has been and is taking place. I should like an assurance that the Government will accept the principle that there can be equality of opportunity without equality of results. I should also like an assurance that an employer will not be pilloried by the commission for failing to offer equality of opportunity if the religious balance of his work force deviates by a few per cent. from what the commission deems to be the religious balance in the catchment area. In the past, one of the difficulties seems to have been that the Fair Employment Agency regularly moved the goal posts when dealing with a catchment area and the numbers that ought to be employed from it.
  There are many other things that I should like to say, but my colleagues and other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and there will be another time, perhaps, to deploy further arguments.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Barry Porter: I am sorry that the Secretary of State has departed for his dinner. He must have thought he was friendless in this place, and he is well aware that on occasion I have expressed mild reservations about the policy followed by the Government in relation to the Province of Ulster. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will give him the welcome information that I shall be voting for the Bill tonight. It may be interesting to hon. Members to know why I am in favour of this Bill.
  I have listened to hon. Member's statistical arguments. There seems to me to be no doubt that the 2·5:1 ratio exists. The only matter in dispute is how that ratio comes about. No one would argue that it all comes about as a result of religious discrimination, but it would be naive of
  224
  anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Province not to argue that some of it comes about as a result of religious discrimination. I believe that to be the case, and if any hon. Gentleman would like to argue the point I should like to hear from him now. There is that problem; it would be foolish and naive to pretend that there is not. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Prove it."] I have been asked to prove it. I cannot prove it. I cannot prove the negative either. But we should proceed on the basis that that element exists, and it is the duty and obligation of the Government to do something about it. The Fair Employment Act 1976 quite clearly has not had the effect that it was supposed to have.
  All that the Bill purports to do is to stiffen that legislation. Of course, there is an element in this legislation of public relations for overseas compsumption. Again it would be naive to deny that. We would want North American money coming in and we would want investment from other parts of the world. And people in North America or elsewhere who believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is religious discrimination in employment in the Province which leads to more difficulties and foments trouble are unlikely to invest. So we are making the statement by this legislation that we are trying to do something about a perceived ill.
  What is the matter with that? I do not object to saying to Americans or to anybody else that we are trying to do something about a part of the United Kingdom in which something is happening that should not be happening. It seems to me to be eminently sensible so to do.
  Rev. William McCrea: As the hon. Gentleman is concerned about righting wrongs, should he not perhaps be suggesting to his Government that they bring in similar legislation as a matter of urgency for the coloured population on this side of the water?
  Mr. Porter: I will come to that later. I can see the thrust of that argument and I do not disagree with it, but that sort of legislation applies to the mainland already.
  My third reason for being in favour of the Bill is that it is quite deliberately vague. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) sees this as a criticism, but I do not. How could one prescribe in detail what will happen in each area, each place and each job? That would be nonsense. It might provide much-needed work for my hon. Friend, or indeed for me, in another guise as a solicitor, but it is not practical.
  I was much taken by the Secretary of State's comment that the emphasis in the Bill is on voluntary action by employers rather than unnecessary penalisation. That seems to be right. I want the Bill to be given a fair wind to see how it works. The commission certainly has power, but this House has the overwhelming power, has it not? If it were seen that the commission was exceeding its powers and acting in an unreasonable fashion against the employer or the employee, or if generally it was not working well, the House could amend the legislation or put something else in its place. Surely, given the reasonable grounds on which the Bill is presented, we should have the grace to agree to see how it works.
  The points which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made were, as far as I could judge, Committee points, not Second Reading points. His objections were not fundamental. I thought that he would. have the grace to say that the Government were trying to

  225
  do something that ought to be done, and then see whether he could amend it in Committee; and of course he would have the right, on Third Reading, to oppose it if it did not come up to his expectations. I expected more of him and I hope that he will think about this before the Bill goes into Committee.
  I have certain reservations. I find it distasteful that people in the Province should have their religious affiliations recorded. That makes me feel uneasy, but I was slightly heartened by the fact that at least 80 per cent. of people are willing to put their religious affiliations in the census form anyway. Eight out of 10 is not a bad start.
  I am also uneasy about whether legislation will make things worse rather than better. I have an inherent dislike—I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) will understand this—about whether legislation can make people like one another or come together rather than move further apart. Of course one is bothered about that. I do not want to see a religious relations industry built up in the Province in the same way as we have a race relations industry here.
  Ms. Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the issue is not a question of relations in this field or of legislation to make people like one another? The issue is whether the state has a responsibility to intervene to try to ensure equality of opportunity.
  Mr. Porter: The short answer to that is yes, it has. That is why, despite my feelings of unease about whether it will succeed, I say that, in the event of extreme bigotry, the state has an obligation to see what it can do to make that bigotry disappear.
  My main reservation is that the Bill will not get at the root of the problem. Other people have canvassed this matter, and we have wondered whether it is a matter of the education system. I am reminded of something that was said to me in confidence when I was in Belfast last week by one of the aircraft manufacturers in the Province. They have been recruiting from schools of all kinds and have made a deliberate, positive and benign attempt to ensure that there is fair employment in the factory. I inquired whether reverse discrimination was practised. The senior man said no rather quickly, but the personnel man said that, there was a difficulty, because they found that, at the age of 15, 16 or whatever it is, there was a difference in the attainment level and qualifications of those from one sector of the education system as opposed to another.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pursuing this argument about educational attainment and the types of education available. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that if one section of the community perceives that it is excluded from particular jobs, the education they receive will adapt in order to equip them for available jobs, so it is the economic system which distorts the school system, not the school system which distorts the economic system?
  Mr. Porter: I beg leave to doubt that. It seems to me on the evidence available that certainly one sector of the education system in the Province is deliberately chosen by that sector to achieve certain ends. I am willing to pursue that at a later time, in another place perhaps.
  Mr. William Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate, and should not the Opposition Front Bench also appreciate, that some Roman Catholic parents, for those very reasons, choose to send their children to state or independent education even at the primary school stage, as is happening in my local school? Those children are perceived as Protestants and are numbered among the Protestant population rather than among the Roman Catholic population.
  Mr. Porter: I did not wish to put it in such blunt terms, but the hon. Gentleman makes the point for me. So far as I can judge, the verdict of employers is that the quality of entrant they get from the Unionist Protestant sector is higher than from the other sector. I state that as a fact. It is something which ought perhaps to be recorded and reflected upon by those who have responsibility for education for Roman Catholics in the Province. I am not being critical; I merely state, despite the fact that there may be only anecdotal evidence, that that is what I have found there.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the Bill. Is he concerned about clause 7, which vests in the commission the duty of maintaining a code of practice and publicising that code of practice? It also vests in the commission the responsibility for taking such steps as it considers necessary to encourage—that is a strong word—employers to adopt the policies and practices recommended in the code. This is giving considerable power to the commission, in which Parliament has no stake.
  My hon. Friend has said that Parliament can take action against organisations such as this. In my view, on no occasion have any of these quangos introduced a code of practice and Parliament has amended that code of practice. Is not my hon. Friend concerned about that?
  Mr. Porter: Of course I share my hon. Friend's concern, but not to the degree of my hon. Friend. I do not think "encouragement" is a particularly strong word. We have had plenty of codes of practice for good behaviour in previous statutes. Perhaps this is something that ought to be explored in more detail in Committee.
  I have said why I support the Bill, and I have expressed my reservations about it. I trust and hope that I will not be on the Committee because I might be persuaded by arguments from the Opposition Benches. We have a perfectly decent, honourable Secretary of State, who, after considerable thought, has introduced this legislation. This House would do well to at least give it a chance.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: The House of Commons is a funny place. I suspect that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), and I will be in different Lobbies this evening, yet I think he and I probably have more in common than I have with some hon. Members who are opposing the Bill. I hope he will agree on reflection that, although one cannot change hearts and minds by passing legislation, legislation can help to form opinion now and in the future. I suspect there is a great deal that we do have in common, but he will also remember that yesterday the House was discussing the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill and how best to contain and finally—hopefully—to put an end to terrorism. Conservative Members were even suggesting

  227
  that the Opposition are not as dedicated to the fight against terrorism as they are themselves. One important contribution which this House as a whole could make to stop paramilitary activities is to show an effective concern to end the conditions which provide a source of young recruits to the paramilitary organisations.
  When I held the portfolio now held by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I did not have his knowledge of conditions in Northern Ireland; still less did I have the knowledge of hon. Members who come here from constituencies in Northern Ireland. But I set out to try to get to know some of the communities over there—separately, because, unhappily, they are mainly segregated. I did it without attracting more attention than I had to and I talked to parents who were worried sick at the thought that their sons, and sometimes their daughters, would be recruited into the paramilitaries.
  Then I talked to the young people themselves, and it became clear to me that there were three factors which helped to make them into potential recruits. The first was that there were genuine grievances in the places where they lived: there were housing problems, there were unattractive environments, there was poor administration of social security and there was the withdrawal of funding for community projects. Above all, there was this spectre of unemployment, which for so many of them is with them from the time they start school until the end of their lives.
  Secondly, and as part of the same syndrome, there was the lack of anything constructive to do; they had idle hands, which were at the disposal of the devil. Thirdly, among people in the minority tradition there was the belief that they were the victims of discrimination, that things were not fair. We could argue about statistics and whether it should be two and a half times, twice or some other figure.
  We could take the point too that was made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—that perhaps the most effective thing we could do is to provide jobs across the board in Northern Ireland, because clearly it is more difficult to deal with discrimination on a falling market than on a rising one.
  I do not believe that any hon. Member would question the proposition that there is an imbalance, a very real imbalance, and one which, as my hon. Friend said in an intervention, cannot be explained by any one single factor in any one primary point. I have talked to people in Northern Ireland from the majority tradition. They will normally say that there was a problem; they will sometimes say it was a few years ago; frequently they will say that it is getting better—and they may be right about that—and they will explain, quite properly, that it did not always arise from conscious discrimination: there were all kinds of factors. It arose partly from the areas where factories were situated, from the perpetuation of a family tradition—if one's uncle worked there one was more likely to get a jot—and it does arise partly from cultural factors in the educational system. It arises from all these things, but it adds up to a substantail imbalance and, if one is not on the right side of the divide, it adds up to a substantial handicap.
  It would be wrong, of course, not to recognise that a great deal has been achieved in recent years. Managements and unions in some plants have worked very hard and have taken very real risks to try to deal with some of these problems. They have dealt with some of the practices
  228
  which made Catholics feel unwelcome: for example, the display of emblems on anniversaries. I can understand the feeling that it is a human right to put them up, but all this had an effect, and many of them have worked very hard to try to deal with it. It was not always easy for them and, of course, it does not always pay to be seen as being in the vanguard. So they have not received the recognition which they might have done, because they have not sought it. I was speaking with some of them this morning. It is important that legislation should do what legislation can be reasonably expected to do to facilitate those efforts.
  The Bill could attack those problems and at the same time demonstrate a real commitment to attacking them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that the Government have missed that opportunity. The Bill does something towards addressing the problems, but its defects are more in evidence than its virtues. They will increase as time goes on and as people see how the Bill works. I understand the Secretary of State's problems. Some of them are caused by those who sit on his own Back Benches. Whatever he does, he will not please everybody. There are others who attack the Bill for different reasons, but the Secretary of State has missed an opportunity.
  Most important of all, because it is right at the heart of any fair employment programme, is the matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North about affirmative action. We can all agree about some propositions. I suspect that we all agree that it is not enough simply to provide that, in future, those who are setting on labour, or considering promotions, should not discriminate. As my hon. Friend said, affirmative action has been very much a part of everyone's thinking on this matter since the van Straubenzee report.
  Those who have been discriminated against in the past are entitled to expect a programme that is designed to restore their position before everybody is given equal opportunities. The horse which has been carrying an unfair handicap is entitled not only to have the weight removed; if that weight is to be removed halfway through the race, it should be given the opportunity to make up lost ground.
  Mr. William Ross: It is not the same horse. The light hon. and learned Gentleman is now speaking about completely different individuals.
  Mr. Archer: I wish that were true. I wish that it were possible to draw a line between present and past and to say that the hand of the past will never be heavy on the present. Some examples have been given in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said in an intervention that the very fact that many Catholics have found it difficult to find work in engineering has created a cultural tradition in which they do not consider obtaining engineering qualifications. There are all sorts of ways in which the past sits heavily on the present.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: In the west of Scotland from where I come, there are descendants of Irish Eiremen and Irish Ulstermen. There are heavy engineering industries in the west of Scotland, too—in particular, the aircraft industry in which I worked. Catholics find no difficulty in adapting to those jobs in the west of Scotland, so why is

  229
  Ulster different? If the argument is about Protestant and Catholic schools, the fact is that denominational schools also exist in the west of Scotland.
  Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend is right. There is nothing about somebody's theological opinions that reflects on their ability to carry out engineering work. However, the very fact that these problems have existed in the past leads to their perpetuation in the present.
  If we simply provide that there shall be no future discrimination, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, we may prevent those who wish to take affirmative action from taking it. That is a real danger, as the Bill is drafted. I am certain that the Government neither intended nor planned that, but they should be very careful that it does not turn out to be one of the by-products of the legislation.
  The first part of the Bill imposes a duty on the commission and, through the commission, on employers to promote equality of opportunity. Clause 20 defines equality of opportunity in terms of individual applicants. One has to give equal opportunity to each individual applicant. Anyone who takes special measures to improve the competitive position of Catholics may find that he is in breach of those earlier provisions.
  Affirmative action is discussed in the White Paper—I think that it is discussed rather better there than it is addressed in the Bill—and affirmative action is dealt with in the earlier part of the Bill. It is written, by clause 1, into duties under the 1976 Act, but we do not hear much more about it in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has already read out the definition in clause 53. How does that square with the duty to provide equality of opportunity for individuals?
  The White Paper contained a different definition. It referred to
  "special measures taken to promote a more representative distribution of employment in the workforce."
  When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will say why the Government have changed that definition, which would have made it clear that special measures were not intended to fall foul of the duty to afford equality of opportunity. It would have been better still if the Government had spelt out in the Bill, at least as examples, some of the steps that they were talking about.
  Of course we all understand the need for common sense and a sense of justice to individuals; otherwise, we alienate the majority and cause a digging in of heels. We make it harder for those who are trying to make progress. I would not recommend a quota system. I would not suggest that employers should give preference to a Catholic who is unsuitable for a job over a Protestant who is clearly the best applicant, although, if I were pressed, I would opt for the American tie-breaker: when two applicants have equal qualifications, preference should be given to the one who has been penalised in the past.
  There are all kinds of affirmative action that would not be offensive to anybody, such as extending and formalising the recruiting and advertising procedures, establishing goals and providing outreach training schemes. The Fair Employment Agency said in its reaction to the Bill— nobody pretends that the FEA has any political axe to grind—that it regrets that affirmative action was not spelt
  230
  out, as it is in the sex discrimination and the racial discrimination legislation. Then it would have been clear that that kind of action was not unlawful.
  I remember the arguments that we had over the MacBride principles. They are written on my heart. The Secretary of State, if I may remind him, said at that time precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is saying now: that the MacBride principles would fall foul of the equal opportunities legislation. The Government said that the MacBride principles recommended reverse discrimination—even a quota system. Those who have taken the trouble to read them will recollect that they did no such thing; but they did recommend affirmative action.
  It was said then that to adopt those principles would entail a breach of existing legislation, because they would discriminate against Protestants. The American courts gave fairly short shrift to that argument, but the question was raised by those who wished to discredit the principles. They argued their case in the context of the existing legislation about equal opportunities.
  The MacBride principles became emotively charged for two reasons. First, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) reminded us, there were those who were prepared to see them used to discourage American investment in Northern Ireland. I know that Sean MacBride never intended that they should have that effect. What most effectively discouraged American investment in Northern Ireland was the very discrimination which they were intended to remedy, but, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle, that nobody wants to discredit what is already happening in Northern Ireland; we do not want to discourage overseas investment.
  The second reason was that the principles were associated with Sean MacBride. I understand that those who knew him in the 1920s remember him as a participant in the violence that, unhappily, affected the whole of Ireland at that time. I knew him as a man whose life was dedicated to the cause of human rights, as the tireless chairman of Amnesty International, where I knew him best, and as a committed worker for peace. I should be out of order if I embarked on a further vindication of Sean MacBride, but I understand why the MacBride principles evoked some of the problems and why they were not considered objectively. But there were those who fastened upon those matters because they did not want progress to be made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is anxious that those who do not want to see progress made will fasten on precisely those problems. I hope that that controversy will not be reopened by the Bill. It will be bad enough if it provides an excuse for those who want an excuse not to take affirmative action, and it will be a tragedy if it deters those who genuinely want to address the problem—and there are many such people. I ask the Secretary of State to avoid that risk and to look again at the Bill, while there is still time, to ensure that the omission of those clarifying words does not defeat the very purpose of the Bill.
  7.41 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that he did not believe that the Bill had anything to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I refer the

  231
  House to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who said:
  "Many programmes and measures have been introduced of value to all the people of Northern Ireland, including the minority, since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. Among the items which have benefited from discussion through the Conference are the establishment of an independent commission for police complaints, the repeal of the Flags and Emblems Act, new legislation aimed at full equality of opportunity in employment".—[Official Report, 12 January 1989; Vol. 144, c. 979.]
  So the Government have put it on record that the Bill flows from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to deny that, although he may not believe in the truthfulness of the Government and may justify his comments because of that.
  For many years a great deal of attention has been focused in Northern Ireland on the question of fair employment. We have heard it implied in the House tonight that if we had full employment in Northern Ireland, or at least if the Roman Catholics felt that they had their quota of employment, the troubles would cease.
  I was late coming to the House because I was attending the funeral of one of my constituents who was murdered in Strabane the other day. Does the House really believe that if the man who lobbed the bomb into the police vehicle had been given a job he would not have taken such action? Does the House really believe that the gangs who gathered and stoned the police, the ambulance and those who hastened to bring help to the dying man would not have done so if they had had their quota of employment? If the House believes that, it fails to realise what lies behind the Republican violence in Northern Ireland. The House should face up to that.
  The very people who killed the police officer and who jeered at those who went to help as the man bled to death, also bomb factories and places of employment and repulse efforts by the Government to bring employment to their areas. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) told me that the Republicans blew up an employment centre in Londonderry and then, when an election was being held, they used the tin that had been put round the wrecked site for posters saying "Vote for Sinn Fein".
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Once again, the hon. Gentleman generalises and implies that the struggle for fair employment is to give fair employment to a group of gunmen and bombers. We are discussing fair employment for the people of Northern Ireland across the sectarian divide. When the hon. Gentleman, rightly, uses emotive examples, he is conveying a different impression. I shall vote against the Bill because it does not go far enough towards what I want, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to make us adopt an emotive approach like his.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House earlier and had heard what was said, he would agree that the impression was given that if these people had jobs they would not be shooting, killing, maiming and bombing. That is what was said and I was dealing with that point. I too shall be voting against the Bill, for wholly different reasons, as will my colleagues.
  There are those who have tried to give the impression during the debate that there is a terrible situation in Northern Ireland in which Protestants are engaged in wholesale discrimination in employment against Roman
  232
  Catholics and that Roman Catholics do not stand a chance of being employed. The hon. Member for Foyle, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, mentioned his own area and made some remarks about it. If one quotes anything in the House from one section of the community, it is ridiculed by another section and vice versa.
  I shall quote from the Fair Employment Agency's own report. The Fair Employment Agency was set up to look at employment figures in Northern Ireland. It issued a report in October 1980 on its investigations at the Department of Health and Social Security. It dealt with 21,000 personnel—and what did it find? It found that the largest part of that particular section belonged to what was known as the amalgamated general service grades. It found when it examined that section that 54 per cent, were Roman Catholics. Most people know that the overall population figures are about 60 per cent. Protestant and 40 per cent. Roman Catholic.
  Although the figures that I have quoted are in an FEA report, they are often forgotten. I could give other figures. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, for example, has 3,500 non-manual staff. The Fair Employment Agency was pushed by many hon. Members to look into the employment question there because it had been said that Roman Catholics were not being employed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The report said that in clerical grades the numbers from each community were very similar up to the age of 30. In that age group, there were 343 Protestants and 348 Catholics, so over half of the people under 30 years of age in clerical grades were Roman Catholics.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is interesting that the examples he has quoted from the FEA report involve public sector employers. I notice that the figures for prosecutions under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 show that 55 per cent, of prosecutions for unlawful discrimination have been in the public sector. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the answer is to have a far smaller public sector in Northern Ireland and that the privatisation programme would be a strong step in that direction?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should wait to hear the rest of the statistics. His argument will not stand up to them, and he should try to find out what Northern Ireland is about. One does not find out from the FEA report who was discriminated against, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a member of my church who was discriminated against by Michelin of Ballymena received the largest amount of money yet paid out in connection with deliberate discrimination. We need to find out the number of Protestants discriminated against, and I shall come to that.
  There was an investigation into the Southern health and social services board. In the district of Newry and Mourne 57 per cent, of all nursing staff were Roman Catholic. The FEA found that nursing accounts for the largest proportion and greatest number of Roman Catholic staff in the board's employment. It said:
  "57 per cent, of all nursing staff were assessed by the agency as Roman Catholics."
  Page 43 of the report said:
  "The representation of Roman Catholics within the job category of nursing is higher than would be expected given the

  233
  ratios of Protestants and Roman Catholics within the local areas and higher than their representation in the other job categories of the Southern Health and Social Services Board. The proportion of applicants for nursing posts who were Roman Catholic was also higher than their share of the locally resident population."
  That was what the FEA found in the public sector.
  Now let us consider the private sector. The hon. Member for Foyle talked about the problems that he had in his district. Pushed by the Unionist representatives of Londonderry, the FEA conducted a study of employment in Londonderry. It looked at private firms, and concluded:
  "Companies located on the City side employ few Protestants and even in the case of one large company on the Waterside, the level of Protestants is substantially lower than the population as a whole."
  The City side, across the river, is predominantly Roman Catholic. There used to be a number of Protestants there, but they have been driven across the river, and the Waterside is now predominantly Protestant.
  The study investigated six private firms. Lee Apparel (United Kingdom) Ltd., Londonderry, employed no Protestants at all. The FEA searched but failed to find one Protestant employed by Essex International, Londonderry. The three remaining firms were in the Waterside, which is largely Protestant. One was found to have a work force with 37·6 per cent. Protestant employees. The second had 33 per cent, and the third had fewer than 20 per cent. Those are not my figures. They are the figures of the Fair Employment Agency. I might add that no Unionist has any faith in the Fair Employment Agency, but these are its figures, nevertheless.
  I find it very strange that Mr. Cooper, the head of that agency, has to be pushed hard before he will look into complaints from Unionist representatives. It takes him a long time to move on our complaints, although he is happy to move on other matters. The FEA's finding was that in Londonderry, where, according to various Republican civil rights groups, Roman Catholics could not secure employment, they had in fact so many of the jobs that in the Roman Catholic areas of the city no Protestants were found in the survey and even in the Protestant areas of the city Roman Catholics had the overwhelming majority of jobs.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Do not those figures show that what we need in areas where Protestants are discriminated against in employment is effective fair employment legislation—with which we could have been presented today, but which is not properly contained in the Bill?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I believe that the answer—some people disagree—is that we need jobs in Northern Ireland. The more jobs there are, the less of a problem there will be. What is more, we should involve ourselves in a drive to get those jobs, as when we have a super-abundance of jobs people will not argue.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that certain sections of the community follow particular occupations. For instance, tiling and slating have always been predominantly controlled by Roman Catholics in the city of Belfast, who have always worked at that trade. No one argues about that. In the shipyards, a system used to operate whereby four people did the riveting—father, brother, uncle and
  234
  son. In the early 1920s there were serious problems in the shipyards which left a dark shadow. These are matters of history, but the way to solve the problem is to get more jobs into Northern Ireland.
  I represent the whole of Northern Ireland elsewhere and I represent many Roman Catholics in my own area. I have to had to fight battles for them in this regard. A Roman Catholic nurse in my constituency was discriminated against, and I had terrible trouble in persuading a Northern Ireland Minister to do anything for me when I pleaded with him about the case. I should make it perfectly clear that I am not talking about the present Secretary of State or his team. It happened to be a Labour Minister, who is a noble Lord, with whom I had trouble. I believe that people should be appointed on their merit.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West that it is difficult to know what to do if two people have the same qualifications. The employer must consider them with regard to the respective percentages that there may be in his work force. In areas where employment quotas have risen, however, we find that instead of tailing off, they are inclined to continue to rise, until Protestants feel that they will be pushed out. That is a great problem. People receive letters through the post asking, "Do you come from a predominantly Protestant area?" I saw such a letter the other day. One of the big firms in Northern Ireland is now asking, "Do you come from a predominantly Roman Catholic area?"
  Let us consider the banks. The Allied Irish bank has connections in the South of Ireland. The FEA investigated all five banks—the Allied Irish bank, the Bank of Ireland, the Northern bank, the Ulster bank and the TSB. It found that there was a wide disparity in the figures—only 16 per cent. Roman Catholic at the Northern bank but 72 per cent. Roman Catholic at the Allied Irish bank. Apparently the two banks with many branches in the Irish Republic have a majority of Roman Catholics while the three banks with their main branches in Northern Ireland have a majority of Protestants. The FEA stated:
  "All figures provided to the Agency show that in every bank the opportunities for Roman Catholics have been improving in the last 15 years."
  That is a summary of what the FEA said about this matter.
  I feel that the severe position of firms in Northern Ireland in regard to the idea that employers have to monitor the religion of all their people is serious business for employers. I receive many representations from employers. We were told by the Minister that the CBI agreed with the Bill, but after he had spoken members of the CBI spoke on radio saying that they agreed with nothing of the sort and were very concerned about compulsory monitoring and so are the employers and employees. Mention has been made today of the safety of all the details about the religion of employees in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland are afraid for their safety and they do not like other people to know the details of their lives. All those problems arise in regard to the legislation. If we had more employment and better employment prospects in Northern Ireland, we would not be debating this business.
  I accompanied the hon. Member for Foyle on a trip to the United States of America in an attempt to persuade people to invest in Northern Ireland. It did not matter where they invested whether it be Strabane or Londonderry, the east or the west, we were both pushing for investment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman

  235
  was very fair to us when it came to creating employment in Belfast. I bear witness to that, and I expect that he would respond by saying that I pushed just as hard as he did in regard to other places. I will continue to do so because an employed people is a happy and contented people and we need more employment in Northern Ireland.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has produced selective statistics which nevertheless demonstrate the great necessity for the Bill. In spite of those quotations, it is quite clear that he will vote against the Bill.
  We are considering a Bill which, in its content and its extent, must appear unusual in this last part of the 20th century. I am sure that not only in north America, but in Europe, parliaments will be wondering why, after 68 years of the administration of Northern Ireland, only tonight have we produced substantive legislation to correct an ingrained injustice in the community. For many years, successive Governments hid behind the excuse that it was the problem of the then Stormont regime, but that cannot apply to the past 16 years. One of the most disappointing features of the past 16 years of direct rule was the failure meaningfully to tackle fair employment. In that period there has been no real change by persuasion or by gentle coaxing of the main employers in Northern Ireland, and gross injustices continue to be perpetrated on the religious minority in Northern Ireland.
  Tonight, I was able to quote an independent assessment as late as 1987 showing that the rate of Catholic male unemployment was 2–5 times as high as Protestant, yet that statistic was queried, as were all the statistics given tonight. However, an independent body, the Policy Studies Institute, gave us that very evidence.
  I listened carefully to all the hon. Members who have spoken tonight. It seems that there is a reluctance to admit that there is a problem of job discrimination in Northern Ireland, or to confront that problem. It seems that we are pussyfooting around, to use a North of Ireland expression. The statistics quoted for and against the Bill make it clear that an imbalance is caused by religious discrimination. It must naturally follow that we should do something about it. I and my party hope that the legislation that we are considering will be that something.
  It is generally assumed that bigotry in Northern Ireland is the sole cause of job discrimination and that the narrow-minded small employers in Northern Ireland are doing all the damage. But that is not the case. The annual report of the Fair Employment Agency shows, surprisingly, that the blue chip companies with headquarters here in London have made a major contribution to the imbalance of employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. I am referring to the banks, the building societies and the insurance institutions which are making a great contribution to the imbalance of employment in Northern Ireland, in addition to the ingrained and endemic bigotry that exists in Northern Ireland.
  The problem must be seen in perspective. As has been said, the engineering industry and the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland have caused and are causing a great imbalance in employment. Tonight, some attempts were made to excuse or justify that on the basis of a predilection towards educational courses which prevent
  236
  the minority from participating and seeking employment in those sectors. The reality is that, when parents bring up a child knowing that certain sectors of employment are cut off from their family, they have very little option but to advise that boy or girl to go in a direction where there is a possible opening at the end of their secondary or tertiary education.
  Over the years, and particularly since 1976, we have clear evidence that persuasion and gentle encouragement have come to naught. That was the method in the 1976 Act and has had little or no effect. We must now have positive, strong legislation with the severest penalties for those who flagrantly transgress the most basic human right—the right to work. As we have heard tonight, we are debating an issue which goes deep into the communities of Northern Ireland and reveals many of the prejudices and biases that exist there. The Bill may be our last chance to create a meaningful piece of legislation to redress the problem. Hopefully, as with the voting franchise and the housing discrimination measures, perhaps the Bill, properly amended, will consign this problem to history, but it will do so only with substantial amendments.
  There is an anomaly in tonight's debate on outlawing discrimination in employment, because legislation already exists which should have accomplished that. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 referred to and dealt with that problem. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the much-mentioned Fair Employment Act 1976 made discrimination on grounds of political or religious belief illegal. However, despite that legislation, nothing has changed materially over the years. The continuous household survey of July 1985, which confirmed the 1971 and 1981 census figures, instigated SACHR to commission a major study by the independent body to which I have referred, the Policy Studies Institute. Its impeccable statistical technology gives incontrovertible evidence of the continued existence of discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland.
  There have been many attempts tonight to explain away the difference between Catholic and Protestant employment. I use those words as a kind of shorthand; I am well aware of the various differences. We have heard about different labour markets and class differences. We have heard about differences in education, attitudes to work, age distribution and family size. Then there is, in the "in phrase", the so-called "chill factor"—the unwillingness of one community to travel to work in an area where another community predominates. We have heard of the dominance of the Protestant community in security-related occupations, and there is the underlying black economy.
  We have heard all those arguments and excuses many times before. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights said that all those factors had been taken into consideration. Its final conclusion was:
  "While all the listed factors"—
  the ones that I have mentioned—
  "are related to unemployment, a man's religion is consistently shown to be a major determinant in his chance of being employed."
  I do not need statistics to enable me to understand what is happening and has happened in Northern Ireland. I live there and I have experienced the consequences of the contents of the reports that have been put before us. But anyone with an interest in fair employment who has studied annually the output of the Fair Employment

  237
  Agency cannot come to any conclusion but that there is an endemic problem that must be addressed with some determination. I should like to think that the Bill, in its final form—I emphasise that—will be the vehicle by which that problem can be addressed.
  Ms. Abbott: Fairness in employment is a difficult issue. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the legislation in the world is of no avail without a genuine political will? Is the hon. Gentleman confident that this legislation is not mere window dressing to appease American opinion? What makes him confident that there is a real political will to deal with the inequality of opportunity?
  Mr. McGrady: I shall deal with that in some detail. We must legislate to enable equality to be achieved. The Bill does not go far enough. There are many positive factors in the Bill that we welcome. For example, we welcome the annual monitoring of the religious composition of a work force which will enable an overview of the employment position to be obtained. That in itself will provide a ready tool for investigation if necessary.
  We also welcome the expansion of the Fair Employment Agency—the commission, as it will be known—with its enhanced resources of money and manpower. We also welcome the substantial fines that can be imposed on employers and the withholding of grants and contracts from those found to have contravened the Act. We welcome the prohibition of indirect discrimination. That was a major gap in the 1976 legislation. We welcome the obligation on employers to carry out a three-yearly review of their employment practices.
  However, that is as far as the Bill goes. We must examine whether the Bill in its present form will have the impact that the Secretary of State hopes. If the Bill cannot be amended in Committee, it will be difficult to accept it as a meaningful and earnest endeavour. I listened attentively to the Secretary of State on affirmative action. He listed a series of possibilities, the major one being the code of conduct. I find it strange that we are discussing the Second Reading of a Bill whose heart appears to be missing. We are debating a Bill which contains a considerable vacuum.
  Affirmative action is the central issue, yet it has been consigned to a vague and imprecise definition at the end of the Bill. That will not merit great support or understanding among the people whom we represent. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the protection required for employers engaged in outreach and training programmes based on religious connotation. Our amendment, which was not selected, refers to specific religious training. That would be appropriate for any work force, but it should have read "religious-specific training".
  There are glaring weaknesses over grants and contracts. Withdrawal will be used against employers, but the whole matter is discretionary. There is nothing mandatory about it. In practice, all kinds of pressure will be brought to bear on those charged with implementing the Act. The measures should be mandatory, not permissive. Even more surprising, in view of the 1976 legislation, the individual complainant is at a disadvantage. The Fair Employment Commission will be unable to take individual complaints unless there is a matter of policy. At present, the Fair
  238
  Employment Agency will investigate an individual complaint and, as it were, run with it to its successful or unsuccessful conclusion.
  In addition, the individual is being put into an adversarial environment before a tribunal. Let us be practical: an individual complaining about discrimination, either because he has not been given a job or is not getting promotion, or whatever, will be reluctant to take that courageous step against his employer. Under this legislation, he will face a variety of barristers and experts, which is not the case at the moment. Even if he wins, the maximum compensation will be £8,500. If he is not entitled to legal aid, he will have to judge whether it is worth his while to proceed, despite any injustice he may have suffered.
  The targets and goals that were so much a feature of the White Paper appear nowhere in the Bill. I attempted to intervene when the Secretary of State talked about monitoring applications. The figure used will apply only to work forces of 250 and over. A sizeable proportion of the work force in Northern Ireland is employed by companies with fewer than 250 employees. Therefore, an enormous number of employers—I do not have statistics to show whether they comprise the majority of employers—will be able to excuse themselves from monitoring applications of their work force every three years. There are also imprecise definitions of "indirect discrimination" and the way in which that concept will be perceived when the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
  We are concerned about the charges of discrimination that will be excepted from investigation, in view of the Secretary of State's intervention under section 42. While I do not want to bandy words with him on this issue now, my personal experience causes me concern lest section 42 has been misapplied. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North gave an example. The Secretary of State is aware of a sub judice case involving a large employer which is obviously a serious matter.
  Whatever mechanism is found, there must be some appeal procedure. At the end of the day it must be possible for an individual or company to say, "I have been found guilty without trial of being a national security risk. What is this all about? May I make a submission on my own behalf?"
  We are greatly concerned about the whole area of orders and regulations. They are too numerous for me to deal with in detail now. A plethora of instruments will be left to the Department of Economic Development, including the code of practice. It is wrong that all the matters which those instruments cover should be left to a period following debate in this House. They should be before us at least in draft form.
  Hon. Members have spoken of the neutrality, as we call it, of the workplace. That issue was raised substantively in the White Paper, but it seems to have disappeared. Neutrality of the workplace is an essential factor in creating conditions by which equality of opportunity can be implemented. For example, in the marching season in Northern Ireland the workplace is where neutrality must exist, for it is the place where the two communities can be harnessed—where they can work together and not oppose each other. Just like the home, the workplace is a vital area for community relations.
  I have given a long list of grave deficiencies in the Bill. I could go on with my shopping list, but I will not do so now. We have before us an opportunity—one might say

  239
  almost a last opportunity—to do something finally about discrimination in Northern Ireland. It will not be a meaningful measure unless it is considerably amended. Indeed, if it is not amended, it will be a sign—perhaps unintentionally—of a lack of interest on the part of the Government to listen to constructive criticism and heed well-argued reasons change. It will also question the good faith of the Government in wanting to solve the problem once and for all. I hope that in Committee the Government will respond to these criticisms and make the major changes in the Bill.
  There is an essential requirement on the Government outside the Bill, and many hon. Members have referred to it. The whole issue of training for industry needs urgent consideration by the Government. They must also consider the location of training schools, for their present locations leave much to be desired. While we want inward investment into Northern Ireland, hopefully from abroad, we should remember that a great factor in discrimination terms in recent years has been the location of industry.
  I must tell the Minister that at this time public bodies under his jurisdiction are guilty of discriminating in the location of industry. That happens on a daily basis, when officers of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit misdirect firms away from areas, presumably for political reasons—and for "political reasons" one can read "religious reasons". If the Minister wants evidence of that, I will be pleased to give it to him privately. It is important that the location of new industries or the expansion of existing ones takes place on a fair basis; otherwise, the problem of discrimination will not be resolved.
  My party hopes that, when replying, the Minister will comment on the points I have made. In particular, will he assure us that, in Committee, the Bill will be amended to take account of many of the shortcomings to which I have referred? If that does not happen, the Bill will be useless for the purpose for which it is intended and will be rejected by the disadvantaged people in the North as a meaningless exercise.
  Several Hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Less than an hour remains before the Front Bench speakers will be hoping to catch my eye to wind up. Many hon. Members still wish to speak, so I hope that those who are called, out of consideration for others, will be brief.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Ian Gow: When the Secretary of State moved the Second Reading, he said that he was in favour of equality of opportunity in employment. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said precisely the same. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) made the same point, and it was also made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
  That shows that we have in all parts of the House a commitment to the principle of equality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland. There, one may think, the unanimity ceases, because despite that unanimous commitment to a single purpose, it is clear that the Opposition parties will vote against the Second Reading tonight.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: No.
  Mr. Gow: We have not yet heard from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). We shall see what happens.
  I remember how, 13 or more years ago, the House voted for a Bill, introduced by the then Labour Government, which is now the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I voted in favour of the Second Reading and Third Reading of that Bill. We meet this evening to debate the Second Reading of this measure because of a perceived failure of the 1976 Act, which was passed through the House with the support of the Conservative party for the then Labour Government.
  We may mark the words of the White Paper which preceded the Bill, because in order to establish the extent to which the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 was successful, the Government set up their review in 1985. This is what we read in the White Paper:
  "the Government's statistical review revealed that the differential employment experience of the two communities was enduring, despite these extensive statutory provisions and the solid work of the Agency".
  The agency, of course, under the Bill, is to be replaced, possibly in deference to the European Community, by a commission. The question which we are entitled to ask ourselves is whether my right hon. Friend believes that the 1976 Act has made matters better or worse. Has the equality of opportunity which all parts of the House desire been assisted or hindered by the 1976 Act? If the answer is that things are really no better in 1989 than they were in 1976, one may wonder why the House is being asked to replace, in effect, the 1976 Act, with further legislation if the existing legislation has not had the desired effect.
  I had considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South when he said that, in a sense, the whole of life is about discrimination. It would be possible to argue that, in selecting the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North as the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the leader of the Labour party was discriminating against all other candidates for the job. I am making an assertion that, in a sense, the whole of life is about discrimination.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who has been diligent in her attendance as usual, might assert that there is unlawful, improper or unwise discrimination by the electorate, or the "selectorate" in this country because of the small number of women who are Members of this place. It is certainly an act of discrimination because, if the kind of parity which is envisaged in this Bill had been applied to women, and for all I know the number of Roman Catholics in this place, then it would be possible to argue that discrimination is proceeding all the time.
  Ms. Abbott: I simply make the point that there seems to be a semantic problem here. The hon. Gentleman, with an uncharacteristic lack of precision in the use of language, is confusing the notion of individual personal judgment with the notion of discrimination, which to my mind, and certainly in recent political discourse, involves large groups of people as a whole being substantially and provably economically disadvantaged.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot equate my personal choice to wear a pink jumper as opposed to a blue one in the House this evening with substantial economic disadvantage among tens of thousands and sometimes millions of people. If the hon. Gentleman is advancing a serious

  241
  argument, which I believe he is, he will do us the service of not confusing personal judgment and taste with massive economic discrimination and the political consequences which follow.
  Mr. Gow: I shall not follow the hon. Lady, although I am glad that I gave way to her. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South that, where there is inequality of opportunity—I repeat that I wish to see equality of opportunity—the belief that such inequality can best be removed by an Act of Parliament is not proven. There are large areas of employment in Northern Ireland where there is inequality of opportunity, but it is not caused by the lack of legislative provision.
  I will give just two illustrations. It is possibly a matter of regret to other hon. Members in the Chamber that there is a massive inequality of religious belief among those who are currently employed as soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment and those who are employed as policemen in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But I assert that it is not the absence of legislation that has led to that differential. Indeed, I believe that there is a danger that the Bill will make matters worse.
  Here we are proposing to set up a Fair Employment Commission and a fair employment tribunal. We are involving the Department of Economic Development and talking about the involvement of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. We are proposing to spend another—900,000 a year and we shall take on a total of 34 additional employees. I do not know whether those employees are going to work in Massey avenue. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will reply to the debate, to determine how many of those additional 34 employees will be taken on by the commission or the tribunal in Northern Ireland and how we shall determine the correct proportion of Roman Catholics and Protestants, or Jews or atheists among those employees.
  Can we legislate for this matter? How can we define in any meaningful sense a travel-to-work area? When we have had the annual monitoring returns from the public and private sector, how will we say that an employer in a particular area should have fewer Protestants and more Roman Catholics? It is self-evident from my right hon. Friend's speech that, even if the Bill achieves its most benign effect, we shall not see an overall diminution in the number of people who are unemployed. We may be able to spin it out rather differently so that in some parts of Northern Ireland there will be more Protestants in work and more Roman Catholics out of work. The most benign result may be that in some other parts of the kingdom more Roman Catholics are in work.
  What we really should be addressing our minds to is how we can get more jobs in Northern Ireland. Of course, we are debating the Bill because the survey showed that, pro rata, more Roman Catholics than Protestants were without a job. So that is the issue to which we should be addressing our minds.
  You will have gathered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my serious reservations about the ability of legislation to improve perceived discrimination. I repeat my opening words I am in favour of equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. [Hon. Members: "How will you do it?"] I voted in favour of what was then the 1975 Bill. I will vote in favour of this Bill tonight, because, despite my serious
  242
  reservations, I approve of the purpose and the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the purpose and policy set out in the Bill. If one has reservations about legislation which is before the House, one is at least able to show that in the Division Lobby. Tonight I shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), as one always does, but the most interesting part of his speech was at the end when, having expressed all those warm sentiments about removing discrimination in Northern Ireland, he was asked what he would do about it and the answer was nothing.
  Any piece of legislation that deals with the difficult issue of discrimination always comes up against the practical aspects of how these things will be judged, and against the problems over which lawyers will always wrestle as to how one legislates for one person to like or love another, and how to express fairness. Of course, we all know that we cannot do that perfectly. No piece of legislation that deals with discrimination has ever done it perfectly. But the fact that the legislation is there provides a bulwark and a backdrop for people to have the legitimate correction of a complaint.
  The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is imperfect in its actions, but its existence helps to act as a bulwark againt sex discrimination. No doubt the same is true of the racial discrimination legislation. Certainly the experience in the United States of America is that where there is legislation in all sorts of areas, even relating to discriminatory discounts for small firms, such as the Robinson Patman measure, it is a help. It may be ineffective as a counsel of perfection in its ultimate jurisdiction and in the way it is carried through, but its very existence helps to solve the problem.
  Surely that is the way in which we should be dealing with this matter. It has been said that all the Opposition parties intend to vote against the legislation tonight, but we shall not do that. We shall vote for the Bill, with caveats, many of them listed in the Labour party amendment, about provisions which are inadequate. We must remember that this is a Second Reading debate, dealing with principle. That principle requires a piece of legislation which tackles discrimination to be considered by the House. We all know that on many occasions when we try to make amendments in Committee the Government refuse them. Committees are being reduced to a farce because the Government do not listen to the arguments, but on this occasion we must give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who has made such a significant contribution to Northern Ireland debates, gave the White Paper a qualified recommendation. He listed a number of key questions which have remained unanswered. His excellent speech bears re-reading now. Nevertheless, the legislation is an attempt to address a serious problem in Northern Ireland so we shall give it a qualified welcome. We are prepared to give it a Second Reading.
  There is little change in what we see before us and what was recommended in the White Paper. A number of questions spring to mind, some of them articulated in the

  243
  Labour party amendment for which we shall vote. It will fail, of course. If it does, we shall vote for the Bill and argue the case later for the amendments.
  Other amendments are worth mentioning. I make no apology for the fact that they were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill when he considered the White Paper. I am sorry that they have not been taken into account. It is important that the question of penalties should be addressed. A £2,000 penalty is adequate for non-registration, but it is not adequate if we are dealing with deliberate misinformation in the case of very large contracts. For instance, in a contract valued at £500,000, a fine of £2,000 for deliberate misinformation would be nothing. I hope that the Government will consider a sliding scale of penalties for misinformation according to the size of the contract.
  The second key point relates to legal aid. We are glad that the Government have agreed that the commission can take up cases on behalf of individuals. That is helpful, although undoubtedly it will be budget-limited. If the commission has at its disposal only a finite sum to fight such cases, it will rightly pick cases to establish useful precedents which the courts can use afterwards. This may not help an individual who cannot afford to pursue a case, as so frequently happens. The lack of adequate legal aid provision is a significant deficiency of the Bill.
  Positive discrimination has not been dealt with. What would happen if an individual sought to take up a case against a firm which wanted to introduce positive discrimination to correct the religious imbalance in an area? What would happen if a person wanted the firm to operate positive discrimination to provide a fairer reflection of the religious make-up of the area? Would that be subject to the legislation played in reverse, as it were?
  Mr. McNamara: Yes.
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman says yes, and so it would appear to be. That is a significant disadvantage.
  The next question is addressed in the Labour amendment. It must be of great concern to people in Northern Ireland and here that the legislation clashes with existing legislation on sex discrimination and racial discrimination. I am sad not to see a tie-up on the employment rights of women, particularly those of ethnic minorities.
  In a comprehensive speech, the hon. Member for—
  Mr. McGrady: South Down.
  Mr. Ashdown: I used to live there so I should remember the constituency. I recall that I lived next door to Captain Orr, one of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors, but that is a matter best not spoken about at the moment.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned the chill factor. This is an important matter brought out by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights and it is one to which the Government should address themselves. Perhaps it cannot be legislated for, but I hope that the Government have thought about it and will consider how to deal with it.
  Once again we are dealing with legislation which is not a solution in itself but merely an instrument which can be used to try to achieve a general solition in Northern Ireland. It does not tackle some key areas such as how to create jobs. We have to read the legislation against the miserable background of a Government who have
  244
  imposed their ideology on Harland and Wolff in a crazy and ludricrous way. Their policy has today delivered to a primary pillar of the Belfast economy the bitter pill of 450 job losses. This is a direct result of the Government's idiotic policy of not allowing Harland and Wolff to bid for Ministry of Defence contracts until it is in the private sector. Here we see the Government taking steps to improve the labour market on the one hand while casually destroying it on the other. It makes no sense.
  With all those caveats and concerns, I believe that the Bill will provide at least an instrument which may help. It deserves to be debated and to go into Committee. It deserves to be improved along the lines which have been suggested in the House, and I hope that that will happen. In that spirit, we support the Second Reading.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that there is a problem, so we should do something about it. That something was legislation.
  Mr. Hume: Part of the something.
  Mr. Budgen: Yes, but it was claimed that legislation inexorably followed from the problem. I smiled as I reflected on how his predecessor would often have said that to suggest that a problem was capable of being cured by legislation was certainly something to which one would expect the Liberal and the Socialist traditions in the House to adhere but certainly not something that Tories on the whole believed in.
  When you stand in a non-political way at an election, Mr. Deputy Speaker, knowing that you will be seated in that Chair for most of the ensuing Parliament, and someone says to you, "Sir Paul, we expect that there will be less legislation if there is a Tory Government," I expect you smile. It is undoubtedly the case that, as Governments settle in, they forget the scepticism that they ought to have about legislation.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for South Down will recognise that among the persons who have affected the opinions and prejudices of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) have been his predecessor and also a great friend of his predecessor, Mr. T. E. or Peter Utley. He once wrote a pamphlet entitled "What Laws May Cure", expressing a high Tory scepticism about the value of legislation and suggesting a number of tests that might be applied before the House proceeded to legislate. He asked whether there was a consensus for the legislation, whether the law would be enforceable, whether it could be specific and whether it could avoid being discretionary and arbitrary.
  When applying those tests to the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has said, we have the advantage of the 1976 Act. I make no party political point, but it was introduced by a Labour Government—by a party which, on the whole, believes in the efficiency of legislation and holds that men's minds can be cured and altered by Acts of Parliament. When I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in what I hoped was a helpful intervention, to explain whether the Bill was building on the 1976 Act, I was amazed when he seemed to reply that it was not. I would not be so impertinent as

  245
  to say that my right hon. Friend had not read the brief, but if he had looked at the White Paper he would have seen on the first page:
  "The basic objective is to strengthen and broaden the existing legislation".
  If my right hon. Friend had had the White Paper handy, he would also have been able to answer my question about the way in which the 1976 Act was working. Paragraph 2.4 gives a detailed exposition of the various proceedings that have been dealt with before the agency.
  I have no doubt that after my impertinence in asking him how the agency worked—I noticed a message coming over from the civil servants—my right hon. Friend would have been told about the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 25 May about the agency's activities, which is in the helpful reference sheet put out by the Library.
  It is clear that when my hon. Friend came to advocate the Bill he had nothing in his mind about the necessity of bolstering the 1976 Labour Act, although that is the thrust of the White Paper. He saw the Bill as a political necessity arising from two things—the Anglo-Irish Agreement and a desire to placate American influence. He did not bother to convince the House in any way about the 1976 legislation. He did not say, "We do not know that it is very good, but it did a partial job. For instance, we have noticed a certain amount of improvement in the discrimination problem in the Province." He simply ploughed through his remarks on the basis that more legislation was necessary.
  The more that we apply the Utley tests, the more sceptical we become. When I read the Bill I thought to myself, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) did, "My goodness, what would happen if this sort of legislation were proposed for the west midlands? When we went back to the west midlands at the weekend our constituents would be jumping up in anger." It seems that political opinion in the Province is slightly different. I do not say that there is a consensus in favour of the 1976 Act, but there seems to be a form of reluctant acquiescence.
  This legislation is severely defective, and plainly not a great improvement on the 1976 Act, and greatly to be condemned because it gives the commission law-making powers that no one should have. The commission will decide what is discrimination and, in a selective way, who should be proceeded against. It is the most arbitrary and political way of enforcing the law, and we are left with no proper proof that the problems of Northern Ireland will be improved by legislation.
  It is sad when a Conservative Government, with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), say, "There is a problem; therefore it can be cured by legislation."
  Mr. Hume: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a problem?
  Mr. Budgen: Of course I do.
  Mr Hume: What would the hon. Gentleman do about it?
  Mr. Budgen: I do not think that it will be cured by legislation. I suggest that it would best be cured by market forces. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) seems very
  246
  angry. If an employer is unwise enough to employ less good people because he or she does not like the colour of someone else's skin or their religious beliefs, that employer will provide a less good service, and when he competes he, will find that he loses.
  Let us suppose that I am running a small business and need a lady to do a job that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington could do. If she applied for the jot)—I know that she would say that such an idea is wholly unrealistic—and I refused her because of the colour of her skin, I would then have to employ a less good person who would offer a less good service. The market exercises a discipline, but in this context the law does not change people's minds or behaviour.
  There is no evidence that the 1976 Act has done any substantive good—there is only the strong suspicion that poor old Northern Ireland is once again being used as a political pawn, partly to placate the Republic and partly to placate the Americans.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Like any other hon. Member, I feel loyalty to the party that I serve in the House, and I am on a three-line Whip to vote against the Bill. Nevertheless, I feel that it would have been better if we had had a free vote tonight. I never thought I would see the day when I would oppose any Government who were trying to bring in legislation to do away with discrimination in Northern Ireland. But I feel that I have some knowledge of the circumstances, living as I do in Glasgow, where the sons and daughters of Ulstermen and people from Eire came to settle because of the great famine and lack of opportunity. My ancestors come from Rathmullin. In my grandparents' day there was terrible discrimination in Glasgow; adverts in newspapers said that Catholics need not apply. Such discrimination still exists, but it is nowhere near as bad as that in Northern Ireland.
  No one should kid himself that education is a problem and that because Catholics are educated in a particular way they enter certain services and industries. That is nonsense. Certainly, the Catholic schools in which I was brought up did not specialise in technical subjects. It was considered a great achievement for a Catholic school to turn out a teacher, a doctor and a dentist, but boys like me took up apprenticeships in the engineering industry. It did not make a bit of difference who we were; if we completed the training, we were able to do the job.
  No foreman in the Rolls-Royce factory where I worked, which turned out the RB211s, was able to say, "That person must be a Protestant because he is a good engineer doing a good job." That is nonsense, and it does not apply in Northern Ireland.
  The Government should consider the fact that discrimination takes place not only in Northern Ireland but on the mainland. It is sad that we are even discussing the legislation. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that no legislation could do away with discrimination. Legislation does help. His argument was used when John F. Kennedy wanted to help Martin Luther King and his people in the deep south. Those who were against helping black people in America said that legislation would not help them. It has been proved that legislation, although not the full answer, certainly helps.

  247
  It is a sad feature of our society that bowling and golf clubs bar black people, Catholics and Jews. On many occasions in the Chamber I have spoken about the British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops in my constituency. The religious make-up of its management is such that Catholics would not be able to obtain promotion. Yet it would be difficult for an employee to complain about that.
  It is galling to have a nationalised industry and Civil Service departments where discrimination takes place, and yet taxpayers' money is used to provide those jobs. A sad feature of Northern Ireland is that a great deal of taxpayers' money goes to provide these jobs. Why should that money be used to help a religious clique?
  If we introduce this legislation in Northern Ireland, we should at least examine the problems on the mainland. Every year without fail articles are written about the masonic lodges in our police forces. I have nothing against anyone joining a masonic lodge if that is what he wants to do. However, lodges that are exclusively for police officers create a problem, because they cause a lack of confidence in sections of the community.
  Wherever religious discrimination exists in the United Kingdom, steps should be taken to eliminate it. The outside world must be asking what is going on in communities up and down the country where people still think in the same terms as their grandfathers and great-grandfathers.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: It is now more than 150 years since the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in this House, which was the legislation which prevented anyone other than Anglicans from attending university and from participating in certain professions. Some of us who come from dissenting religions, however, still have folk memories of the sense of injustice that that legislation caused and of the fact that Quakers, Jews and other non-conformists were obliged to leave the professions to go into trade. No one should ever under-estimate the deep sense of injustice that can be felt if people believe that they are being discriminated against solely on the grounds of religion. That sense of injustice can be very deep and can go forward for many generations.
  The discrimination does not have to be deliberate, positive, malicious or cruel. It is possible, especially in employment, for people to discriminate unconsciously. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) referred to people getting jobs on the basis of their father, their brother or their uncle. Of course, if people get jobs solely on that basis, almost certainly they will be awarded jobs, too, in the Northern Ireland context, because of their family connections and their religion.
  We must make it clear that we are committed to fair employment because it is right and because we find it repugnant that anyone should be put at a disadvantage because of their religion. We must make it clear that we are determined to tackle the problem of religious discrimination in employment. Everyone should welcome the proposed legislation, which would require all employers not only to avoid discrimination, but actively to practise equality of opportunity and, where necessary, to take affirmative action. Some hon. Members have skated over this a little too glibly and have pretended that there is no problem in Northern Ireland, but despite almost 10 years
  248
  of anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, unemployment among the Catholic community in Northern Ireland has remained disproportionately high.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way.
  A Catholic male is two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than a Protestant.
  Mr. Budgenrose—
  Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way. I have only a limited time and my hon. Friend has already had his opportunity.
  Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
  Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way.
  Rev. William McCrea: When was the hon. Gentleman last in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Baldry: Appointments to jobs should always be on the basis of merit. For that merit principle to operate properly, it is essential that there should be no unnecessary obstacles in the way of any applicant being considered on merit. Employers in Northern Ireland must be encouraged to open up their recruitment practices and processes to the widest possible range of applicants. Under-represented groups must be given a fair and full opportunity to compete for employment. To do that is not only just and equitable, but it will thwart those critics and enemies of Northern Ireland who use the statistics of comparative unemployment—for example, unemployment among male Roman Catholics as compared to that among Protestants—as evidence that employers should not invest in Northern Ireland and that it should be ignored.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there is now an economic opportunity for Northern Ireland and for other parts of Europe in the period coming up to the European single market in 1992. I was in Korea two weeks ago. Companies in Korea and the far east want to invest in Europe before the single market is created, as do other companies throughout the world. Now is the time for Northern Ireland to take advantage of those opportunities, but the enemies of Northern Ireland will tell companies not to go there—to go to Wales or anywhere else—because there is discrimination in Northern Ireland.
  The issue of employment discrimination in Northern Ireland has been exploited in the United States by proponents of the so-called MacBride principles. We know that since 1986 a coalition of local politicians and Irish American groups, through a series of shareholder resolutions and state legislation, have sought to force American companies operating in Northern Ireland to adopt those principles. Although the principles are vague, imprecise and impractical, that campaign threatens to harm substantially the long-term prospects of Northern Ireland's economy.
  American firms currently employ some 10,000 people in Northern Ireland—around 10 per cent. of the manufacturing work force. With this Bill on the statute book, those in the United States who are concerned about fair employment will have all the ressurance that they need that Northern Ireland is a place where equality of opportunity is actively implemented and the MacBride

  249
  principles will be as redundant then as they are irrelevant now because it will be demonstrably clear that we are fully committed to fair employment.
  We should not forget that if Northern Ireland is to prosper, investment and job creation are essential complements to the more effective practice of equality of opportunity. If Northern Ireland is to flourish and if the unacceptable employment differentials between Protestants and Catholics are to be reduced as quickly as possible, there is no doubt that more jobs are needed. All of us in the House must promote the considerable attractions that Northern Ireland presents as a location for new investment. That investment and those jobs will come more easily if there is no shadow of a suspicion of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland undoubtedly has a lot to offer and we should trumpet that fact abroad.
  It is sad that in debates such as this we hear very little of what Northern Ireland has to offer the world. Northern Ireland has plentiful skills and a traditional work ethic. In many ways, it is an educational showcase not only with two major universities but with many good schools. Northern Ireland has a high level of computer literacy, good labour relations, a well-trained work force, favourable tax allowances, highly competitive labour costs and a proven track record with international companies such as du Pont, Ford, GEC, and so on. In the past year du Pont alone has invested £180 million in new facilities. That is all very good news which we should be trumpeting abroad and, in so doing, helping to attract new jobs and new investment to the Province.
  In the short time available to me, I do not intend to go into the details of the Bill because that has been done exhaustively throughout the debate and I am sure will be done in Committee as the Bill goes through the House, but we must make it clear that at the centre of the proposals is a determination to maintain the principle of appointment on merit. The Bill is clearly against quotas and reverse discrimination, because in the climate of Northern Ireland their effect could be catastrophic on acceptance by the wider community of the fairness of the equal opportunity proposals. In the context of Northern Ireland, religious monitoring must be the key to fair employment practice, for only such monitoring can supply the basic information necessary to determine whether fair employment is practised. The emphasis of the Bill is rightly on voluntary effort by employers rather than on unnecessary penalisation.
  I hope that the Bill will demonstrate beyond peradventure to the whole world not only that Northern Ireland has a great deal to offer but that all forms of discrimination in Northern Ireland will be eliminated if the House has any say in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) asks what laws may cure. The fact is that we in this House have the ability, through legislation, to demonstrate to the world that we are doing everything that we can to eliminate discrimination. If those who argue against legislation feel that there is a better way, let them come forward and demonstrate what it is. Until that time we must use the best means available to us. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  250
  There is, however, one note of sadness which the House cannot pass over in silence this evening. For many years until now there has been a considered consensus of hon. Members in all parts of the House in seeking the best way to move forward in Northern Ireland. That has implied a number of things. First, it has assumed that the Government of the day, of whichever party, have been using their best endeavours, as people of good will, to find the best way forward in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it has assumed that the Opposition of the day seek to find such common ground as they can with the Government of the day to move forward in what, on any account, is perhaps one of the most difficult situations that this House faces today.
  Sadly, that consensus has now apparently been broken, and the Labour party has clearly decided that it is far easier to criticise whatever the Government are doing. Of course, whatever one does in Northern Ireland, one can either argue that it is not enough or that it is too much, but what the Labour party is doing is showing that, for the most part, it is a party of political pigmies—and the same goes for the SDLP—who have not the courage to stand by the Government on certain issues and say, "We do not agree entirely with this legislation but at least it is a step in the right direction, so we shall give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt for wanting to achieve something and move forward on a positive basis and we shall support him." Instead, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman merely seeks to carp and to find any division whatever. I can only assume that his speech today was written by a lawyer because if I had been given a brief to carp and nit-pick at whatever points were made in this Bill I should have been hard put to do a better job.
  Not one positive statement has been made from the Labour Front Bench in this debate. I hope that Labour Members will reflect that what the hon. Gentleman said may well find favour with those groups that he enumerated at the beginning of his speech as being the starting point in Irish politics, but I doubt very much whether they will command much respect in Northern Ireland or in the rest of Britain.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The course of this debate has not been unexpected to anyone who has sat through the numerous debates we have had on Northern Ireland down the years, and I have no intention of following the course which others have followed in this debate. I prefer to deal with a single specific aspect of this legislation, and that is the methodology of the investigations and the setting out of the reports which have been followed in the past by the Fair Employment Agency and which will undoubtedly have to be followed in the future. If we are ever to get anywhere we must have absolutely accurate statistics, and I do not believe, despite all that has been said, that those statistics as yet exist in Northern Ireland.
  The reports in future must have a single, uniform system applied to them. In my preparation for this debate I—am sorry that I have such a short time left to speak—I took the opportunity to compare a number of the reports, and I discovered that some reports treated the folk employed as being drawn from all of Northern Ireland. The Civil Service is a case in point, a most prominent one, but there are others, such as Northern Ireland Railways,

  251
  the Ulster museum—which surprised me somewhat—and the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, which did not really surprise me.
  Then, on the report of employment patterns in the Belfast area, with particular reference to engineering, I discovered that the Fair Employment Agency used the travel-to-work area. Council areas were used for the reports on AVX, Hyster, Lucas, and the North Eastern education and library board. For the report on the Northern Ireland airports, the home towns of the various employees were listed and those home towns extended from Coleraine to Newcastle. Then, as a second string to their bow, they listed the council areas of Belfast, Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Antrim and Newtownabbey. For the Western health and social services board, the report gave numbers and percentages of employees and also drew attention to the fact that the catchment area included Donegal, in a foreign country. In one class of employee, 7 per cent. of the employees are from Donegal.
  Mr. Hume: Tell that to the Conservatives.
  Mr. Ross: That remark could also be addressed to Mr. Cooper, who is a native of Donegal.
  No boundaries were drawn concerning the reports on the newsletter in the Irish News. However, we discovered that the statistics in the Belfast Telegraph seemed to be based on the number of persons who were available for each printing trade. I should have liked to deal with that matter, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so.
  If we are to produce something that makes sense and that fits together in a comprehensive manner, it is vital that each investigation should be carried out in exactly the same way, that reports should be prepared under exactly the same headings and that people should know exactly what statistics and what areas are being discussed.
  In many urban areas employees will walk to work. People who live in rural areas will have either to drive or use public transport to get to work. We need to know exactly what area we are looking at and the criteria, but we do not have that information.
  It is essential to find out what criteria are to be applied and those criteria should be used strictly all the time. If no information is supplied under a given heading in one report, although that information is given under the same heading in another report, the reason for the lack of that information in the first report should be stated. Only when that information is provided and only when the same procedure is followed in all reports will they make sense. I ask the Minister to take that point on board. We on this Bench agree with the first one and three quarter lines of the Opposition amendment but very little else.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: We have had a wide-ranging debate and the difference of opinion among hon. Members is not perhaps unexpected. My first task is to explain why the Opposition will, though extremely reluctantly, be voting against the Bill.
  I take as my starting point the Secretary of State's speech. I am sure that he was speaking on behalf of the Government when he said that, as a moral principle, no matter where anybody lives in Northern Ireland, he or she should have equal opportunities when applying for a job.
  252
  There is no difference between the Secretary of State and me on that point. There is also no difference between his party and mine on that point.
  The Secretary of State also said that it was not just a question of stopping discrimination; we need to encourage equality of opportunity. It is at that point that the Secretary of State and I, and his party and mine, begin to differ. I accept that the Secretary of State takes a different view of the implications of the Bill, but our understanding of it, and the expert opinion that we have received about it, coincides with the view of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) rather than with the view of the Secretary of State—that the Bill will not carry out the intentions that the Secretary of State and the Government would like it to carry out.
  The Bill is seriously flawed, particularly over the taking of affirmative action. If the Bill were to be enacted as it stands now, it would make the situation far worse in the Province and it would not lead to the increased inward investment in Northern Ireland that all of us wish to be achieved.
  The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), say that that is not true. The only people whom I have heard say that that is not true are the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State. Every expert opinion that I have read bears out our view about affirmative action rather than the Government's view. I suggest that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary should re-read the Bill and understand it properly.
  It is for those reasons and because we believe that the Bill is seriously flawed that it is in everyone's best interests, at this stage, to defeat the Bill so that the Government can come back to the House with another Bill on which there is some unanimity. We could then begin to carry out the objective that we all want to attain—fair employment in the North of Ireland.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced enough Member of Parliament to know that what he has said is rubbish. If the Bill is defeated, it will not come back in this Session and it will be the end of an attempt to introduce measures that we believe will genuinely help fair employment. The hon. Gentleman understands the parliamentary process and I trust that he accepts the short title of the Bill, which refers to:
  "the promotion of equality of opportunity in employments".
  Anything beyond that can be amended in Committee. The House should give the Bill a Second Reading and then we can argue the points fairly in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is profoundly wrong, and I would be appalled if he denied us the opportunity to prove that we are right.
  Mr. Marshall: The Secretary of State knows that I do not doubt his sincerity, and I do not doubt the Government's desire to do something about fair employment in the North of Ireland. Our assessment is that the Bill will fail to do that.
  I want to deal with the two specific points that the Secretary of State raised. First, he said that the Bill could be amended in Committee. Our experience with this Government is that it is exceedingly difficult to persuade them to accept amendments in Committee. Secondly, the Secretary of State said that there was no further parliamentary time for another Bill on the subject this

  253
  Session. We believe that the present legislation, especially in terms of affirmative action programmes, is substantially better than the provisions in the Bill.
  The House will be disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm shown by the majority of hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I exempt the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), but the majority of hon. Members from the Province who spoke tried to call into question the validity of the statistics. Every rational and sane person accepts the validity of the statistics. If one is not prepared to do so, one has only to go and see the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland.
  It is difficult to accept or understand that position, but it illustrates the wide gulf between perceptions and reality in the North of Ireland. It is necessary that there should be some unanimity in the House over the need for fair employment in the North of Ireland. I must repeat the offer that I made to the Secretary of State a few minutes ago. If he is prepared to withdraw the Bill and to have consultations with the Opposition, I am sure that we can offer the Bill an easy and ready passage not only through the House but in Committee.
  If we are ever to achieve lasting peace in the North of Ireland, all our citizens there must have equal political access and equal economic opportunity. Whatever the reasons for the present inequality—whether direct discrimination, indirect discrimination or the excuse we have heard this evening about accidents of geography—one cannot doubt the fact that Catholic male unemployment in Northern Ireland is a staggering two and a half times that of Protestant males. Clearly, there has not been equality of opportunity in the jobs market.
  Any new legislation must be judged against two criteria—first, its impact on the existing jobs market, and, secondly, its impact on inward investment, particularly American investment. Judged on the first criterion, the Bill will be a signal failure. Whatever the conclusions we may reach, hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the acid test for fair employment legislation must be the extent to which it enables employers to implement programmes of affirmative action, and to which it enables the new Fair Employment Commission to require affirmative action programmes. Despite the view of the Secretary of State, we are advised that the Bill as drafted endangers existing programmes and retards the possibility of more extensive affirmative action in future. If our assessment is correct, the Bill is fatally flawed.
  On the second test—the need to attract foreign investment—the Bill may well prove to be a short-term propaganda success. I note that one of the Under-Secretaries—and, presumably, officials from the Northern Ireland Office—is parading round the UnitedStates of America, no doubt selling the Bill as a propaganda victory to the anti-MacBride campaigns in the United States. The Bill may well succeed in that short-term objective, but without a doubt its lack of teeth and substance will quickly become apparent.
  We all accept that new investment in the form of new jobs is necessary if any significant attack is to be made on the imbalance in Catholic and Protestant employment. In that context, American investment is particularly important. However, it will not be long before the Bill is revealed as a toothless wonder. No matter what short-term
  254
  propaganda success the Government may achieve, when that happens American companies will again come under pressure when they seek to invest in the North of Ireland or to place orders there.
  The proposals do not match up to what we believe is necessary. Worryingly, in our view—
  Mr. Budgen: It may help the hon. Gentleman if I tell him openly across the Floor of the House who, according to the Conservative research department brief, will be caught by the Bill. I quote from the final sentence of the section entitled "Attacks Answered":
  "Only deliberate defiance or obstruction of the Commission and Tribunal is penalised under the Bill."
  In other words, unless an employer says, "Push off" to the commission, he will be all right.
  Mr. Marshall: I hesitate to say that I am grateful to have the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West as an ally on this point. He has reinforced my assertion that the Bill is a toothless wonder. I hesitate, too, to applaud him for voting with us this evening as, presumably, he does not have the courage to do so.
  We are worried that some of the provisions in the Bill—on contract compliance, for example—are weaker than the proposals in the White Paper. One cannot over-emphasise the fact that, if it is passed, the Bill will provide the framework for fair employment legislation in the Province until the end of the century at least. If it is not capable of seriously addressing the imbalance and the question of Protestant and Catholic employment, it is not worth having.
  In our view, the Government have failed in their responsibilities in three key areas. First, they have failed to give a clear indication of the way that all Government policies—political, social and economic—are to be subject to the litmus test of whether they promote equality of opportunity. Secondly, they fail to set targets and timetables for reducing the current ratio of unemployment between Catholics and Protestants, thus ruling out the only effective and objective way of measuring the success of the legislation. Thirdly, the Bill is extraordinarily silent about the measures to enforce the legislation in the public sector. We should emphasise the importance of the public sector in Northern Ireland. Although 200,000 people, or 40 per cent. of the work force, are employed in the public sector, the Bill fails to spell out how the legislation will be effective in the public sector.
  The Bill pays lip service to the need to promote equality of opportunity, but it does not permit effective and affirmative action to bring that about. I shall mention two examples. As we understand it, and as we are advised, the legislation would make unlawful schemes to train existing employees in a company who might benefit from training for another job in the company or for promotion. We are also advised that outreach measures designed to encourage applications from school leavers to companies with serious imbalances in their work forces would also be illegal. The Minister shakes his head. I am prepared to be convinced by argument, but not by the Minister shaking his head.
  If the Government are serious, the provisions of the legislation are far weaker than those available under race relations legislation or the sex discrimination legislation which provide and encourage means of affirmative action. In addition, the Bill should spell out that the Fair

  255
  Employment Commission should be specifically charged with the duty to develop and implement a strategic policy for ensuring the achievement of equal opportunity.
  We welcome the proposal that all public sector bodies and all large employers should monitor applications as well as their existing work force. However, like the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, we urge that the Bill should contain a timetable for reducing the 250 employee threshold, for a number of reasons. As the Government know, private sector employers with more than 250 employees are fairly rare in many rural parts of the Province, especially west of the Bann. In certain urban areas, such as parts of Belfast, the limit is too high and very few companies would fall within the net. There should be a time scale for reducing the threshold.
  The Bill is totally inadequate to deal with the scale of the problem in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the great expectations built up by the publication of SACHR's report on fair employment have been dashed by the Bill. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has expressed great disappintment. We share that disappointment. I urge the House to reject the Bill.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): This is a major piece of legislation—a substantial Bill of 55 clauses which will affect the pattern of employment in Northern Ireland for years to come.
  Let me first deal with the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) who challenged the Bill's fundamental purpose. Speaking, as I do, as one who believes in the dynamo of the private enterprise system that is central to economic success and who believes strongly in the importance of freeing private enterprise from the shackles and burdens of government, and indeed that the private enterprise system allows and encourages the flowering of individual efforts and so makes its contribution to democracy itself, I accept that we should think carefully before introducing further regulation on business. Government should approach the subject with diffidence and move only when it is clear that action is required.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made that point with fluency and wit. He is one of the few Members of Parliament who can amuse and entertain even as his barbs find their mark. I enjoyed my hon. Friend's speech, but I have to say to him that, in the context of Northern Ireland, it was fundamentally misconceived.
  The facts on unemployment are not in dispute. The Government's own statistics suggest that the unemployment rate for Catholic males runs to about 2·5 times the rate for Protestants. Moreover, there are significant differences in the type and pay levels of the jobs, with a clear tendency for Catholics to be over-represented in the lower grades and under-represented in the higher grades.
  There could be many reasons for those disparities and the report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and other studies have tried to identify the explanations which could be put forward. For instance, it has been argued that Catholics are concentrated in areas of
  256
  higher unemployment in the west of the Province and that that contributes to the continuing differential in employment.
  It has been said that social differences between Protestants and Catholics are a major element in unemployment differentials, and it is certainly true that. in using the words "Catholic" and "Protestant", one is not dealing simply with the manner of worshipping God but with a complex socio-political-economic condition. It has been argued that differences in educational attainment, and in subject choice and availability, have contributed to the disparity in employment levels.
  In its important report, SACHR also studies the suggestions that have been made that Catholics tend to have a lower commitment to work than Protestants—an idea which SACHR considered and rejected—and that differences in unemployment levels derive partly from differences in age distribution of the Catholic and Protestant sections of the community and the tendency of Catholics to have larger families. All those intensely personal issues have been studied, and properly so, because they provide the framework—the background—to Government consideration and the legislation which has flowed from that.
  In the context of Northern Ireland, it has been argued that Catholics and Protestants can be reluctant to travel to work outside the immediate area where they live, or may be reluctant to work in places or areas which they regard as hostile. As the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, this is known in Northern Ireland as "the chill factor" and there is no doubt that it has some influence. Similarly, it has been argued that Catholics are less willing to accept certain types of employment, the most obvious example being work in the security forces, where work may be available but for various reasons they may feel unable to apply.
  Those are sensitive subjects, but it was right that SACHR should commission its detailed study, which in broad terms comes to the conclusion that some of those items do contribute to the employment disparity. However, it is also clear that, even when all those factors are taken into account, there is still an unexplained difference. There remains a much higher correlation than one would have expected between religion and unemployment.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Is there any reason why SACHR did not put a percentage on the people who would have jobs in the security forces if they went for them?
  Mr. Viggers: Yes, I believe there is. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his study of the report, it gave statistics against some of the heads that I have enumerated, but not against the security forces. It points out the number of people who do work in the security area, and I have freely admitted that that may be an element in the consideration, but the fact is that, after all those points have been carefully considered, there remains an unacceptable disparity.
  At the end of the day we are left with one clear conclusion which no one can deny the Fair Employment Act 1976, conceived as it was with good intentions, has not been successful in eradicating employment disparity between Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland. In

  257
  statistical terms, overall the improvement in Catholic employment that was indeed to flow from the 1976 Act has not been achieved.
  That does not mean that progress has not been made. There have been important areas of substantial progress. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West that there have been over 60 sectoral studies and investigations, and over 400 individual cases, have been examined. Many valuable improvements in employers' practices have been introduced, both at the instigation of the FEA and in the light of the Government's guide to good practice.
  To take one example, and an important one, the Northern Ireland Civil Service has introduced a comprehensive monitoring programme. This example is now being more widely followed in the public service generally. The experience of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and indeed that of the major private sector employers who have introduced monitoring and have taken affirmative action, shows that any imbalance in applications and recruitment can be reduced if tackled appropriately.
  So some progress has been made but the statistics remain obstinate and clear and they are reflected in public attitudes. There is a wide perception among Catholics that they do not stand the same chance of a job. The statistics confirm this to be the case, and it would be absolutely wrong for Government to stand aside from this situation. Government have a heavy moral obligation to improve the climate of fair employment in Northern Ireland and I submit that any fair-minded person entrusted with our responsibility in this field would take the same view.
  If the House agrees, as I trust it will, that legislation is required in Northern Ireland to improve equality of opportunity in employment, is this Bill the legislation which is best calculated to achieve that necessary effect? Certainly, in approaching this legislation, the Government have taken care to consult widely, and my right hon. Friend referred in his introductory remarks to the consultations over two years. Throughout the whole of this process we have been consulting very widely with employers and employee representatives and with community interests. We also had the opportunity of discussing our proposals with Government representatives from the Republic of Ireland. We have followed with interest the views expressed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, who took a sustained interest. We have taken account of their views and, of course, we have taken account of the views of all those whom we have consulted.
  We are satisfied that the thrust of our proposals now laid before the House has a broad consensus of support and that they will be successful in achieving the intention of promoting equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Martin Flanneryrose—
  Mr. Viggers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, especially as he has not been present very much during the debate and as I am short of time. But perhaps I should, briefly.
  Mr. Flannery: Apart from there being many things wrong with the Bill, it seems to have no teeth. What
  258
  enforcement machinery is there to implement its provisions? It will peter out like all the others, because it contains no enforcement procedures.
  Mr. Viggers: I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong, and I hope to reassure him on that in due course.
  As I was saying, we have a level of consensus from the consultations that we have carried out. With this level of open consultation and support, one would have hoped to achieve a measure of unanimity for the proposals in the House, at least in principal. I recall that, when the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill was introduced to the House in 1976 by the Labour Government, the Conservative spokesman, the late Airey Neave, described that Bill as "essential and important." Winding up the debate on Third reading, the late John Biggs-Davison said:
  "The official Opposition have supported, and do support, the principle of the Bill".—[Official Report, 11 June 1976; Vol. 912, col 2002–3.]
  The Conservative party at that time had reservations about points of detail on the Bill but did not seek to divide the House on Second Reading or on Third Reading. So the Conservative party supported Labour's proposal in broad terms.
  How very different the situation is tonight. The Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a grudging and petulant speech, with all the emphasis on what he perceived to be wrong about the Bill and lacking the grace to admit that much in the Bill is common ground between us. He was thrown into high relief by the hon. Member for South Down, who said that he would not oppose the Bill and that it needed amendment in Committee.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) gave the Bill a fair wind. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said that he found himself in a surprising position, as he would have to oppose the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), winding up for the Opposition, sought to rectify some of the damage by hedging some of his remarks and using expressions such as "as we understand it" and "as we are advised" on several occasions.
  The hon. Gentleman, as we understand it, was wrong in saying that outreach training is not possible and that affirmative action has been weakened. He was badly advised if he was told that. Moreover, if the Opposition think that outreach training and the lack of affirmative action are flaws in the Bill, although I can assure them that there are no such flaws, they should support the Second Reading. Then, within the context of the long title of the Bill, they should seek to amend the Bill in Committee.
  They do not have the grace to do that. They are taking an opportunity simply to show that they oppose the Bill root and branch, and to demonstrate that they have the vitality and virility to oppose the Government. They are making a serious mistake, which I am sure they will regret.
  Ms. Abbott: Will the Minister accept that our opposition to the Bill is based on a point of principle? The Bill is Hamlet without the prince. An elaborate structure and 55 clauses have been drawn up to enforce a code which is the heart of the Bill, yet the test of the code is not before us. Our opposition to the Bill is based on the fact that it is sheer window dressing to appease American opinion. It will leave behind it bitterness and a feeling in the Province of having been cheated.
  Mr. Viggers: I can reassure the hon. Lady completely on that point. It is normal practice, when regulations such as a code of practice are required in connection with an Act of Parliament, that they should be introduced between Second Reading and the Committee stage. The Second Reading of the Bill approves the Bill in principle, and the Committee considers it in detail, and needs to see the code of practice. We already have the guide to effective practice which gives an indication of the lines the code will take. If we had produced the code at this point before Second Reading we would have been criticised for assuming that the Bill had been given a Second Reading. We are doing exactly the right thing, consistent with normal practice.
  The Opposition, whatever they say, cannot deny that the Bill proposes the most radical and incisive legislation on fair employment in Northern Ireland presented to this House by any Government. It improves significantly on the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act produced by the previous Labour Government and introduces a new range of obligations, powers, and penalties to ensure that the new law has sharp teeth. We have no doubt that the Commission will not hesitate to use them.
  Dealing with a point about monitoring raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), there will be new regulations for compulsory monitoring by employers, although of course there will be no obligation on workers to register. We stress the obligation placed upon employers. Employers will have that duty and be required to produce the results of their monitoring to the Fair Employment Commission.
  There will be new criminal penalties, backed by economic sanctions, covering Government grants and public sector contracts. For the first time, indirect discrimination is defined and outlawed. In all these ways, the Bill delivers fully on the major commitments of the White Paper which was published last May; indeed, it goes further and does not renege in any way on its commitments.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) complained that the Bill did not explain as clearly as the White Paper how different measures would apply—for instance, affirmative action. If 1, as a humble solicitor, may say so to him, a learned barrister, this is the fault of legal language. We are turning the intentions of the White Paper into statutory language. There is no weakening of the proposals in the White Paper.
  Mr. Archer: The point I was making was not that the Bill was not a textbook but that it did not make the position clear in statutory language. The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was making was precisely the point which the Secretary of State made when we were discussing the MacBride principles—that equal opportunities and affirmative action can sometimes cut across each other.
  Mr. Viggers: I take the point. I shall not pursue it further, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, because of the lack of time.
  I want to explain the ways in which the Bill expands and strengthens the White Paper. There will be stronger enforcement procedures. Specifically, the fair employment tribunal may impose monetary penalties up to £30,000 for breach of a tribunal order, this being a unique power for a tribunal in the United Kingdom. There will be a new obligation on employers of more than 250 people to
  260
  monitor not only their work force but also the applications for jobs. I have noted the point made in the debate that the figure of 250 should be reconsidered. That is a point clearly best considered in Committee.
  All registered employers will be required to review their key employment practices at intervals of three years or less to see if affirmative action is required to improve their employment practice. There will be a new power whereby the Fair Employment Commission can investigate the patterns of employment at any particular organisation and receive voluntary but binding undertakings to improve on employment practice.
  Accordingly, by any objective or informed standards, there can be no doubt—none whatever—of the radical and comprehensive nature of the Bill. Nor can there be any doubt about the Government's determination to see that the new commission is properly resourced to exercise its new powers. We are substantially increasing the budget and the numbers of the Fair Employment Commission.
  The leglisation is indeed tough, but it is also fair. I say that with confidence, because it is a central feature of the legislation that appointments shall be on merit and that the best person should be appointed to the job. On that point I reassure the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley): merit is a clear principle in the Bill and it reflects the prohibition of direct discrimination which has been in force since 1976.
  However, I must emphasise that merit in this respect takes account not only of ability but also of aptitude, and this latter point allows for recognition of potential My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) asked about this in connection with an employer in Northern Ireland whom he had visited recently. It is a central point of the Bill that there will be outreach training and affirmative action which will take account of aptitude. Employers will not simply consider the best person suitable for the job at the time. Aptitude and training potential will be relevant.
  Many points were raised during the debate. Because we were anxious that as many hon. Members as possible should have a chance to speak, it will not be possible to deal in detail with all of them. I have sought to do so as far as possible, but the other points can be dealt with in Committee.
  The Bill should be supported. It is a matter of grave concern to us that the Labour party does not feel it possible to support it at this point. I think the Labour party will accept that there is a great deal of discrimination which is unintentional. Recruitment by word of mouth can lead to a concentration of workers from one part of the community. Advertising jobs in one area or through one newspaper can similarly lead to an unbalanced recruitment practice. Personnel managers may not give full thought to their recruitment practices. The prevalence of flags and emblems in the workplace can discourage one or other part of the community. In that sense there are many ways in which discrimination in employment can be unintentional. We will source the Fair Employment Commission and give it more power and authority so that it can aid employers to improve their practices which may be unintentional.
  Northern Ireland needs to make progress on three fronts: political, security and economic. In the field for which I have specific responsibility, economic development, great strides have been made in the last two years, with substantial investment by local companies and

  261
  inward investment from overseas. The economy has some good features, and increased employment can assist in every aspect of life in Northern Ireland.
  The Bill will play a major part in promoting fair employment and the perception of a fair and just society. It is an important and genuinely progressive measure, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 268.

  Division No. 67]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Foulkes, George

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fraser, John

  Allen, Graham

  Fyfe, Maria

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Galbraith, Sam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galloway, George

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  George, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Barron, Kevin

  Gould, Bryan

  Beckett, Margaret

  Graham, Thomas

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

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blair, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blunkett, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Haynes, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Holland, Stuart

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hume, John

  Clay, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lamond, James

  Cousins, Jim

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Crowther, Stan

  Leighton, Ron

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cummings, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Livsey, Richard

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Darling, Alistair

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Dixon, Don

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dobson, Frank

  McGrady, Eddie

  Doran, Frank

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKelvey, William

  Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McLeish, Henry

  Eadie, Alexander

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  McTaggart, Bob

  Fatchett, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marek, Dr John

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Foster, Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  262

  Maxton, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meale, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Short, Clare

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Morley, Elliott

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Paul

  Strang, Gavin

  Nellist, Dave

  Straw, Jack

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Turner, Dennis

  Patchett, Terry

  Vaz, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Wall, Pat

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wai ley, Joan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Prescott, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wilson, Brian

  Richardson, Jo

  Winnick, David

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Robertson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. Martyn Jones and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butterfill, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Alton, David

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amos, Alan

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Durant, Tony

  Atkins, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Favell, Tony

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forman, Nigel

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forth, Eric

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Benyon, W.

  Franks, Cecil

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gardiner, George

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Gregory, Conal

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ground, Patrick

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

  Grylls, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  263

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mudd, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayward, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heddle, John

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Holt, Richard

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Portillo, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunter, Andrew

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Irvine, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Irving, Charles

  Renton, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jackson, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Janman, Tim

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Key, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lang, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Latham, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Speller, Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McCrea, Rev William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Steen, Anthony

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mans, Keith.

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tredinnick, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Trippier, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  264

  Viggers, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wood, Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Woodcock, Mike

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Yeo, Tim

  Ward, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Wheeler, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing
  Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 192.

  Division No. 68]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Durant, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Evennett, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert

  Fallon, Michael

  Alton, David

  Favell, Tony

  Amess, David

  Fearn, Ronald

  Amos, Alan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forth, Eric

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkins, Robert

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fry, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Gardiner, George

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gow, Ian

  Benyon, W.

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  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

  Ground, Patrick

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hannam, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bright, Graham

  Harris, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Hayes, Jerry

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hayward, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Heddle, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Conway, Derek

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Howard, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

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

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

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  265

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Price, Sir David

  Irvine, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Irving, Charles

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Jackson, Robert

  Renton, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lang, Ian

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Latham, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Livsey, Richard

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maples, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mills, lain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Trippier, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Viggers, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Neubert, Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Norris, Steve

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Warren, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wells, Bowen

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wheeler, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Whitney, Ray

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pawsey, James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wood, Timothy

  266

  Woodcock,Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr.John D. Taylor and

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr.Tom Sackville.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Haynes, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Hinchliffe, David

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ashton, Joe

  Holland, Stuart

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Blair, Tony

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Blunkett, David

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Illsley, Eric

  Bradley, Keith

  Ingram, Adam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Lamond, James

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Buchan, Norman

  Leighton, Ron

  Buckley, George J.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Caborn, Richard

  Lewis, Terry

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McAllion, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McCartney, Ian

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Clay, Bob

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Clelland, David

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cohen, Harry

  McKelvey, William

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  McTaggart, Bob

  Crowther, Stan

  Madden, Max

  Cryer, Bob

  Maginnis, Ken

  Cummings, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marek, Dr John

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Darling, Alistair

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Dewar, Donald

  Maxton, John

  Dixon, Don

  Meacher, Michael

  Dobson, Frank

  Meale, Alan

  Doran, Frank

  Michael, Alun

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

  Eastham, Ken

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fatchett, Derek

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flannery, Martin

  Morley, Elliott

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Nellist, Dave

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Galloway, George

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Patchett, Terry

  George, Bruce

  Pendry, Tom

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Gould, Bryan

  Prescott, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Radice, Giles

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Grocott, Bruce

  Reid, Dr John

  267

  Richardson, Jo

  Strang, Gavin

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Straw, Jack

  Robertson, George

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooker, Jeff

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wall, Pat

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Walley, Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Short, Clare

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Martyn Jones and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Rate Support Grant (Sandwell)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The measure of the importance that those of us who have the honour to represent constituencies which include parts of the borough to Sandwell place on this debate is reflected by the fact that the four Members of Parliament for the borough—including yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—are present. If, as I hope, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) succeeds in catching your eye, he will let the House know about the problems that his constituents face in the part of the borough that he represents with such distinction.
  In October last year, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities circulated a report based, it was suggested, on the Department of the Environment forecast of the likely block grant distribution for 1989–90. The AMA produced the report because it thought that it would help local authorities in their rate planning for 1989–90 and that it would allow them to make a more considered response to the Secretary of State's proposals. The report made allowance for community charge preparation costs and for the transfer of higher education establishments from the control and funding of local authorities to polytechnics and to the colleges providing those functions in April 1989. Grant implications were shown for a range of grant distribution arrangements throughout the country, and Sandwell's block grant estimate was raised from £55·7 million to £58·3 million.
  In November 1988, the Secretary of State issued full details of his proposals for the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement. From this report, Sandwell's grant was calculated on a relevant amount of expenditure amounting to £177·5 million, including an allowance for community charge preparation costs of only £295,000. However, Sandwell's total revenue costs next year for community charge preparation will amount to £2·3 million.
  The Department also announced a reduction of £2·6 million in respect of the amended financing arrangements for higher education establishments, to which I have already referred. Accordingly, therefore, Sandwell's grant-related expenditure assessment was put at £172·74 million, with a block grant entitlement of only £50·8 million. On receipt of this information, the borough's councillors made strong representations to the Secretary of State and sought a meeting with him. The request for that meeting was declined.
  On 19 December 1988 the Secretary of State laid a report before the House of Commons, describing the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90. It transpires from the settlement that the relevant amount of expenditure for Sandwell has been reassessed at £177·7 million. That consequently gives a slightly higher block grant entitlement for the borough of £51·06 million, which is a mere £278,000 more than the figure for the current year. The base budget for Sandwell for 1989–90 is £188·3 million, which allows for no growth whatsoever. In the light of the block grant settlement, and even if Sandwell uses all its balance of £22 million or so, the borough's rate will still have to rise by 12·7 per cent for services to be maintained at their present level.

  269
  Clearly, as a local authority that is attempting to care for its community and to meet the severe level of deprivation faced in the borough, a standstill budget is unlikely to be acceptable. The budget requires some growth, and the council has determined that it will try to allocate that to the areas of greatest need. It has also put in train a major efficiency exercies to try to make some savings in the borough. Nevertheless, the consequence of the grant allocation for Sandwell is that instead of the anticipated grant of between £55·7 million and £58·3 million it faces a block grant of £51 million£that is, £4 million to £7 million less than expected when the figures were first prepared last year.
  Over the years, the borough of Sandwell has been a consistently low-rated authority. In the current financial year, the borough has a rate in the pound of 251·50p compared to the average of all metropolitan authorities of 288·05p, so the difference is 36·55p. In each of the past six financial years, the rate in Sandwell has been significantly lower than the average for all metropolitan district authorities, and that has produced substantial savings for all domestic and industrial ratepayers. To give an example, the saving amounts to £10 million over a period when grants from central Government to local authorities have been consistently reduced.
  The settlement already announced would mean that Sandwell would need a heavy rate increase merely to stand still. That settlement, and the rate increase that I have already mentioned, would include throwing in all the borough's revenue balances to keep the rate increase at that level. Bearing in mind the Government's devotion to so-called sensible financial policies for local authorities, I hope that the Minister will agree with me that no organisation with a £200 million revenue budget can operate without balances.
  The facts are even worse than I have outlined. Sandwell is in the top five metropolitan authorities in terms of deprivation—a fact readily demonstrated by district audit figures and many other sources. The recent district audit service report on the borough said in the summary:
  "The deprivation of the borough and its population is self-evident. Research showed that it was if anything even worse than it appears."
  On expenditure in the borough over the years the report said:
  "The Council has always been a careful spender, and has built up substantial balances. Its expenditure on many heads is well below average for Metropolitan Districts, and for social services it is below even the allowance for them in the block grant calculations. Social services and housing appear to be the Council's most daunting challenges."
  The Government set up that audit, but far from helping the borough of Sandwell in the the two areas mentioned in the report, the Government have considerably reduced the housing allocation entitlement in the next financial year. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West will say something about the social services and the growth that is needed there.[Interruption.]
  Although unemployment has been falling slightly faster in the borough than in England and Wales as a whole, we still have one of the highest proportions of unemployed people who have been out of work for more than a year.[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Hon. Members are showing great discourtesy to the hon. Member who has the Floor, because of the noise that is going on.
  Mr. Snape: I thought that Whips were traditionally silent, but that is obviously not the case in the current Administration.
  Only four wards in Sandwell have unemployment rates below the national average. The average income in the borough in 1984–85, the last year for which figures are available, was only 67 per cent. of that in Great Britain as a whole. Fifty-six per cent. of Sandwell's employed earned below average incomes in 1986. The West Midlands low pay unit estimated that 40 per cent. of full-time employees were earning less than two thirds of median male earnings compared with 25 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole.
  Another measure of poverty in the borough is the high proportion of households in receipt of housing benefit. As I have said earlier, the cut in housing allocation finance in the next financial year already means that the 78 per cent. of council tenants who claim housing benefit are likely to be even worse affected and 57 per cent. of private sector tenants are also poor enough to claim that benefit.
  A recent university of Warwick study entitled "Local prosperity and the north-south divide" found that of 280 local labour market areas Smethwick ranked 276th and West Bromwich 240th in terms of economic performance between 1981 and 1986. Yet this is the borough that is facing swingeing rate increases. Those unfortunate enough to live in council property face a rent increase of £5 per week, which is due entirely to the financial policies of the Department of the Environment in 1989–90.
  One further illustration of the shabby way in which the Government have treated this most militantly moderate of local authorities is the fact that out of budgeted expenditure of £104·4 million in the financial year 1981–82, the council's initial grant entitlement amounted to £43·1 million or 41·2 per cent. of budgeted expenditure. Without a change of heart, out of estimated budgeted expenditure of £190 million in 1989–90, Sandwell will receive only £51·06 million, or 26·8 per cent.
  I make a further plea to the Minister. For years, the Government have castigated a small minority of well-publicised local authorities, most of them in this part of the world, for what they consider to be unwise and unnecessary expenditure. We in the borough of Sandwell—heavily Labour-controlled though the borough is—do not believe that the onset of global thermo-nuclear war can be prevented by hanging signs from lamp posts, and we have no obviously unnecessary expenditure. Yet the borough is to be heavily penalised under the settlement.
  We all know why the Government are cutting the rate support grant for Sandwell and other boroughs and refusing to fund poll tax preparations. The Government have a big enough majority in the House to introduce the poll tax, but we believe that the Secretary of State wants to discredit the rating system so as to make the poll tax look a better prospect than it really is. It is unfair to treat a borough like Sandwell in the way that the Government seem determined to treat it. It is particularly unfair to do so having trailed views in the middle and latter part of last year which suggested that the borough's rate support grant settlement would be far higher than was eventually announced.

  271
  I appeal to the Minister to reconsider, even at this late hour. It is not just Sandwell's domestic ratepayers who face dramatic increases. The increase will also have an enormous impact on the business rate in the borough and on small businesses already struggling to cope with nine increases in interest rates in the past year. The consequences in the borough of the Department's parsimony in the rate support grant settlement will be enormous. If the Minister cannot or will not tell the four hon. Members who have the honour to represent the borough that the Department is prepared to reconsider the settlement, we shall do our utmost to ensure that the blame for the swingeing increases that all our constituents face is placed firmly where it belongs-in the laps of Ministers at the Department of the Environment.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for allowing me part of his time. I congratulate him on making available to us the opportunity to ventilate the problems that we face in Sandwell.
  My hon. Friend has painted a clear picture of the problem that confronts Sandwell council—a problem not of the council's making, but imposed on it by the Government. It faces the choice of denying local services which are urgently needed, or imposing a massive rate increase—or sharing out the burden between ratepayers and those who need the service, many of whom will be the same people and thus will bear both halves of the burden.
  I shall not seek to improve on the account given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East. The figures that he gave speak for themselves. To most of us, those figures are so large that they are difficult to take in, and we would find it difficult to notice if a nought were added or left off. However, it was not an academic exercise because those figures break down into smaller sums which might have been used for specific purposes.
  My hon. Friend mentioned social services in Sandwell. I have constituents who are handicapped and will remain trapped in their homes unless a ramp is constructed allowing access for a wheelchair. As the ramp has to be constructed by the council, the council holds the key to their freedom. I know many people who enjoy a totally different life because the council has constructed a ramp, a rail, a shower unit or in some cases a stair board. I am sure that my hon. Friend—or you, Madam Deputy Speaker—could produce similar examples.
  All those facilities require council officials who are experts in that subject. The council do not have enough experts, so people are kept waiting—sometimes for months—and that is time out of their lives. The social services committee of Sandwell council understands the problem and wants to deal with it. It wants to provide for expenditure on the revenue account for people with disabilities of £94,000 in the next financial year and £111,700 the following year.
  I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friends, have the same experience as I when at every advice bureau I see people whose lives are dominated by environmental problems. The environmental committee of Sandwell council wants to double expenditure on dealing with air pollution and noise. People come to us in tears because of housing conditions. The housing committee wants to increase revenue grants from £24,000 in the next
  272
  financial year to £101,000 in the following year. The education committee wants to provide four nursery nurses for special needs at a cost of £25,700 in the next financial year and £27,200 in the following year. With that increase in rates which is now contemplated, I doubt whether that money will be available. Almost certainly the council will have to make choices between those purposes.
  Those are the sums into which the macro-figures quoted by my hon. Friend break down. They can all be translated into human misery or relief. If the Minister says that there is no more money and the council cannot have an increase in rate support grant, they represent part of the even larger sums with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing last year—the sums that he gave to taxpayers on high incomes. When the Government do that, this is what happens to the other half of the equation.
  10.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on securing the debate, and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).I note that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) is also present. It seems something of a Sandwell occasion, with all its Members of Parliament present—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East suggested—the council has made similar comments—that any local rates increase next year will be a direct result of central Government. That is not the case, and I shall explain why.
  First, the hon. Member should know that the present rate support grant system is mechanistic. Ultimately, an individual authority's grant entitlement is decided not by Ministers in some arbitrary way, but by the block grant formula, which must be based on general principle. I am sure that all hon. Members would not in fact wish it to be otherwise, but I accept that the present system is over-complex and incomprehensible. That is why we are abolishing it and setting up a simpler system which will be based solely on authorities' needs. On current exemplifications, that system could bring real benefits to community charge and business rate payers in Sandwell, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, by way of lower bills. But that will not be the case if the council continues to increase its expenditure as it has done in recent years.
  I shall deal with Sandwell's expenditure shortly, but I want to make it clear that, nationally, for next year's settlement, we have provided £1·1 billion or some 9 per cent. more grant in aggregate than is being paid out this year, after making allowance for the transfer of funding to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. By any account that is a generous settlement, and it is pointless to speak of reductions in grant percentages.
  Mr. Snape: I am not talking about the global figure. Will the Minister accept that the figure that has been announced for Sandwell is, in actual terms, £280,000 higher than the total block grant settlement given by the Department of the Environment in the current financial year. How, given inflation of about 7 per cent., nationally agreed pay rises and other unavoidable items of expenditure with which the borough is faced, can that extra £280,000 be stretched to meet all the other factors over which the council has no control whatever?
  Mrs. Bottomley: These are complex matters. I am trying as fast as I can to explain the detail of them to the hon. Gentleman, and I am coming to precisely that point.
  It is not the case, as the council and the hon. Gentleman have suggested, that Sandwell will receive less grant next year. The fact is that, after making the necessary adjustment for the effects of the changes in funding for further education, the settlement actually provides extra block grant of almost £2·9 million—6 per cent. more than it is receiving this year. What is more, our proposals for closing down the present rate support grant—now enacted in the Rate Support Grants Act 1988—mean that the council can have much greater certainty of its grant entitlement next year, because the Act provides that there is no grant penalty for spending up—a difficulty faced by Sandwell on several occasions.
  Hon. Members might ask why Sandwell's increase in block grant of 6 per cent. is less than the 9 per cent. that I have mentioned. Although I was referring then to the increase in aggregate Exchequer grant, there is in fact a similar increase in block grant next year. The simple answer to hon. Gentlemen's questions, is once again the grant formula. Specifically, the council gains some £7 million grant from changes in its gross rateable value, in its population and from changes in other detailed factors in the formula; but it loses some £4 million of that potential gain because its grant-related expenditure assessment increases by less than the average, largely as a result of the use of up-to-date information on capital and other financing items.
  I hope that I do not have to explain GREs to this House tonight. All I would say is that an authority's GRE is essentially our assessment of that authority's spending need, calculated on the basis of principles applicable to all authorities. Each year, we discuss proposals for improving certain elements of GREs with the local authority associations.
  The system works in such a way that, even if an authority's GRE increases—as it does for Sandwell next year, by 9·6 per cent. per head—if that increase is less than the average, its share of grant falls. There is no question of any Government interference in particular cases. While, as I say, the changes next year are not all to Sandwell's benefit, it is still the case, as hon. Members have said, that its GRE is the ninth highest of any metropolitan district in the country, in recognition of the area's real needs, which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has so powerfully spelt out.
  The result of all that is that Sandwell will receive over £51 million grant next year, or £171 per head of the population—as I have said, some 6 per cent. more than the grant paid to them for the current year.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why the proportion of Sandwell's total expenditure, which is to be met by block grant, is lower than the overall figure of 43·3 per cent. nationally. I think that, once again, that shows a misunderstanding of the system, which I can sympathise with only too well. The 43·3 per cent. refers to the proportion of relevant expenditure met from aggregate exchequer grant. But AEG and relevant expenditure include many specific and supplementary grants, such as police grant, certain housing and environmental improvement grants, transport supplementary grant and many others. The proper comparison is not between AEG and
  274
  relevant expenditure but between block grant and the level of total expenditure, which is the measure used in calculating authorities' grant entitlements.
  Looking at those figures, we have provided £8,840 million, or £715 million more block grant than this year. If authorities spend in line with the settlement, block grant will be 32 per cent. of their total expenditure. Sandwell's grant entitlement, which would represent 28·7 per cent., is lower than the national figure because of differences between GRE and total expenditure and the way rateable values are reflected in the current system. In short, it is less not because Government say it shall be less, but because of Sandwell's spending decisions and the way in which the formula works.
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested that we are making Sandwell pay for most of the costs next year of preparing for the introduction of the community charge. Again, that is not the case. We are actually providing local government generally with £110 million for the current costs next year. This is very much in line with the independent Price Waterhouse report and other estimates. Fifty per cent. of this sum is to be met by specific grant and the remaining 50 per cent. is taken into account in the RSG settlement in the normal way. We estimate that Sandwell will receive specific grant of some £0·295 million with, as I say, the remainder reflected in its grant entitlement.
  Hon. Members should also be aware that we have provided extra capital allocations of some £135 million next year. Sandwell will receive £0·72 million in addition to its allocation for this purpose of £0·158 million for the current year. Clearly, we do not accept what the hon. Gentleman and Sandwell are saying about the costs of setting up the community charge.
  Returning to why it is simply wrong to suggest that Sandwell's suggested rate increase is somehow the Government's fault, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the rate levy is a matter for Sandwell. Clearly, this will depend to some extent on the amount of block grant the authority estimates that it will receive. Given closedown arrangements, this amount no longer depends on what the authority spends. But as I have said, Sandwell is getting 6 per cent. more grant next year, so why a rate rise of perhaps as much as 18 per cent.?
  The answer lies not in the settlement nor in grant reductions for earlier years, which I understand had been fully taken into account by the council. It lies in the council's decisions on spending—not necessarily decisions this year, but certainly spending decisions at some time. It is always the case that, as expenditure increases, sooner or later the bills for ratepayers are higher.
  One way for an authority to cushion ratepayers from the immediate effects of such increases is to use its general rate fund balances to finance part of its expenditure. This is a device used for a number of reasons, but perhaps often when a council believes that a high rate increase might be politically damaging. Sandwell has done just that. It took the decision to increase budgeted total expenditure this year—1988–89—by some 12 per cent. over estimated outturn for 1987–88. Not only was this a significant increase in real terms; it was also well above the average increase for local government generally, and came on top of an above average increase in the previous year.
  This level of expenditure would have required a local rate increase of almost 30 per cent. in 1988–89, but that would have made its rate the highest in the west Midlands and well above the average for metropolitan districts

  275
  generally. I can understand why it chose instead to draw some £23 million from balances to keep the actual increase within single figures and to camouflage its existing spending from its ratepayers.
  Mr. Snape: The Minister will concede that Sandwell's expenditure in the current financial year was entirely in accordance with the advice given by the Audit Commission, which pointed out that, particularly in areas such as housing and the social services, Sandwell in effect needed to spend more, which is just what it has done.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I have little time in which to complete my remarks. Our proposals have been enacted in the Rate Support Grants Act 1988 and I can add nothing to what was said during the passage of that measure. Our proposals are the only practicable way forward. No system allows the truth to be hidden for ever. Sandwell council overspent in previous years and drew on its balances.
  It was suggested that there had been difficulty in Sandwell having its representations heard. The letter from the Council arrived too late to arrange a visit, but the hon. Gentleman's representations were taken into account. My right hon. Friend had a meeting later with the West Midlands passenger transport authority on the points that it wished to raise.
  As I said, no system allows the truth to be hidden for ever. An authority can hide its true level of spending, by using reserves and other means, for some time—certainly as long as the money holds out—but, if it does not curtail its spending, the bill must eventually be paid.
  That is happening in Sandwell. This is why ratepayers face much higher increases next year. It has nothing to do
  276
  with the settlement, which would have provided for any rate increase to be below the level of inflation had the council rated this year for the full costs of its budgeted expenditure and decided to keep its expenditure at around the same level next year.
  It is not for me to comment on the council's reasons for increasing expenditure so rapidly in recent years, so that it has moved from being 5 per cent. below GRE to 8 per cent. above. Nor can I say for certain why it has budgeted to use such large amounts of funds and reserves in recent years when, I presume, it must have been aware that this would eventually lead to significant rate increases unless it addressed the root cause—and that, as I trust I have made clear, is its spending. I am certain that hon. Members will agree there can be no real justification for an expenditure increase of over 27 per cent. in the last two years.
  We have heard tonight a tale of a council attempting to hide its true spending policies from its ratepayers and electorate, but the truth will out. If Sandwell's rates go up, that is because it has spent up. Nothing I have heard tonight should persuade anyone to the contrary.
  What I have heard tonight from the hon. Gentleman is that Sandwell council is determined efficiently and effectively to provide services. I hope that it will take advantage of the competitive tendering and contracting out to raise the savings that the Audit Commission has made clear—
  The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Assets (Seizure)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stage has been reached with regard to a bilateral treaty with the United States of America for receiving the moneys payable where United Kingdom police have assisted United States' police in serious crimes and assets have been seized by the courts; and what is the timetable for the conclusion of the treaty.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are still seeking clarification of the exact requirements of United States law and how they might be met. It is not yet certain whether either the agreement on drug trafficking which we concluded with the United States last year or any future agreement of wider scope would in itself provide a sufficient legal basis for the transfer of money.

  Prisons
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what areas in the county of Avon are currently under consideration by Her Majesty's prison board for the construction of new prison provision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department has been looking at a number of possible sites in Avon as part of a general site search exercise covering the whole of England and Wales. Preliminary inquiries into these sites are continuing and it would be wrong at this stage to make specific reference to particular locations in advance of the outcome of those inquiries.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff the Broadcasting Standards Council will have; and what its total annual budget will be.

  Mr. Tim Renton
  The Broadcasting Standards Council will employ fewer than 20 staff and the annual budget is likely to be just over £1 million.

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of the Department's employees; what child care provision, for school holiday or after school care, is provided for employees' children aged five years and over; and what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At present, the Home Office provides no facilities for the pre-school age children of its 92
  staff, but it is examining the feasibility of setting up a nursery in Croydon. A play-scheme for older children already operates there during the school holidays. Children of Home Office staff are also eligible to attend holiday play-schemes in Bootle and Westminster, and the Department has agreed to contribute to the initial funding of these schemes. Further proposals for child care, and their funding, are likely to be considered over the next five years.

  Black Detainees
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year for the last 10 years and by place of detention the number of black detainees held in custody at police stations in the Metropolitan police area who have died whilst in custody; what the figures are for areas outside the metropolis; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available. Information on the total number of deaths in police custody, including the force area, place where death occurred and the cause of death, is published annually in the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what are(a) the average earnings of prisoners and (b) the range of prisoners' earnings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The average weekly pay of inmates in prison service establishments in England and Wales is estimated to be about £2·38. It ranges between £1·55 for those for whom no work is available and £5.36 for those on maximum pay under various incentive schemes.

  Israeli Ambassador (Letter Bomb)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet able to make a statement about the origins of the letter bomb recently sent to the Israeli ambassador.

  Mr. Hurd
  A postal bomb addressed to the Israeli ambassador was successfully defused by a Metropolitan police explosives officer at the embassy on 16 January. The package was posted in north London on 13 January, but it is not known who was responsible for sending the device. Police inquiries are continuing.

  Prison Medical Services
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further progress has been made with respect to the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee report on prison medical services.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government welcomed the Select Committee's report and accepted in whole or in part the majority of the 58 recommendations it contained.

  The accepted recommendations cover a wide range of subjects. Where it has been possible to deal with them quickly that has been done. Some by their very nature are susceptible of implementation only in the long-term. Advance on others is determined by the results of

  93
  negotiations with the central Departments or in discussion with, or after deliberation by, appropriate professional bodies. In this last category I include the important subject of the training of prison medical officers, which will be reviewed in the light of a report being prepared by a working group under the chairmanship of the president of the Royal College of Physicians. Subject to those provisos, progress is being maintained.

  Illegal Parking
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is issued to the Metropolitan police as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate(a) to tow away illegally parked vehicles, (b) to clamp illegally parked vehicles and (c) to issue a fixed penalty notice for an illegally parked vehicle.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner that all police officers and traffic wardens are trained in the enforcement of parking restrictions. Those police officers deployed on wheel-clamping and vehicle removal duties receive further training specifically related to those tasks, and operate under written instructions from senior officers.

  Ministerial Advisers (Salaries)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure on salaries of ministerial advisers in his Department for each completed year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have nothing to add to the information which I gave to the hon. Member in my reply of 16 January 1989 at columns 5–6.

  Guardian Angels
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any entrants to the United Kingdom belonging to the group known as the Guardian Angels, currently visiting the United Kingdom, visited the United Kingdom previously; whether any of these persons overstayed previously; and who is sponsoring these persons during their visit to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  At least one member of the group has been here before. I am not aware that any have overstayed. I understand that the costs of the visit are being met in part by the group themselves, and in part by friends here.

  Football
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders were issued in England and Wales during the 1987–88 football season; and how many of these arose from incidents connected with Football League matches.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The exclusion order provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 came into force on 1 August 1987. For the 12 months ending 31 July 1988, a total of 925 orders had been recorded by the Football Association. The information readily available does not distinguish which of these were related to incidents connected specifically with Football League matches.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by(a) type of offence, (b)
  94
  gender and (c) over or under 21 years of age, those charged with football-related offences in the course of the 1987–88 season.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on charges brought for football related offences is not available.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on 18 January,Official Report, columns 202–3, he will express the number of breath tests given and the number positive as a percentage of (a) resident population of the police area, (b) per mile of road in the police area and (c) per registered motor vehicle in the police area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by local authorities in fulfilling their civil defence obligations during the first two years of the planned programme for implementation of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) 1983.

  Mr. Hurd
  Copies of a report on implementation of the 1983 regulations by 1 October 1988 have been placed in the Library. The report discusses local authorities' progress in meeting their civil defence obligations since the last such report, which covered progress up to March 1986.

  On 22 July 1986 my hon. Friend the then Minister of State announced the Government's proposals for a planned programme for implementation (PPI) of the 1983 regulations. The PPI is a rolling three-year programme, setting priorities and a timetable for systematic monitoring by the Home Office. Provision exists for the payment of grants towards expenses incurred by local authorities in connection with the discharge of their civil defence functions. The PPI provides a framework enabling the Government to establish whether those functions are being efficiently performed so that grant can properly be paid. Detailed discussions with individual county councils and fire and civil defence authorities focus on schemes of work in the context of their estimates of grant-aided expenditure, and enable the progress each authority has made to be fully assessed.

  Since the introduction of the PPI with effect from 1 October 1986, the number of grant-aided emergency planning staff in local authorities has risen by about 30 per cent. About half of these staff resources have been committed to the preparation of the plans required under schedule 2 to the 1983 regulations. In March 1986 many of those plans were found to be incomplete and in a number of cases they amounted to little more than statements of intent. Under the PPI all county-level authorities are required to submit copies of plans for monitoring in accordance with the timetable. All have responded to this requirement and analysis of the material indicates a significant overall improvement in the quality of operational plans. Nevertheless, the position still varies from authority to authority and even the best plans require further work. There is also a continuing need to test, review and revise plans once they have been made, and this need will be directly addressed in the next stage.
  95
  Local authorities are required to make arrangements for the training and exercising of volunteers and their own staff. There have been encouraging increases in the volume of such training. The number of volunteers stood at around 25,000 last year; this year they are expected to total about 27,000. Time spent by volunteers on training and exercises this year is expected to exceed the time spent last year by about 15 per cent., while the figure for staff training this year is expected to exceed last year's by about 70 per cent.

  Progress has been less satisfactory in meeting the requirement to establish emergency centres in which to control and co-ordinate civil defence actions. A total of 513 such centres should be provided in England and Wales, but only 195 were reported to be operational by 1 October 1988. In a further 139, work was reported in progress or identified as needed, while in the remaining 179 no suitable site had been identified. Local authorities which are not fulfilling their statutory obligations in this respect will be asked for specific proposals to remedy the position.

  In 1985–86 the total grant-aided civil defence expenditure by local authorities stood at £15·25 million. The provisional figure for 1987–88 is £21·25 million and in 1988–89 it is expected to rise to about £23 million. This expansion has been well above levels of inflation and reflects the Government's commitment to civil defence planning. It is our intention that current levels of expenditure will be maintained for the next few years.

  The Government believe that the PPI has brought about significant improvements in local authorities' states of civil defence preparedness. Results have been achieved and the concept has been widely supported in the local authority community. But a great deal remains to be done to consolidate and extend the advances which have been made, by continuing the programme well into the 1990s. A circular is today being issued to local authorities, setting out the Government's intentions for the PPI for a further two years which will cover the period from October 1989 to October 1991. A similar circular is being issued by the Scottish Home and Health Department. Each county council and fire and civil defence authority will be asked to set specific targets for that period, with the highest priority being given to continuing the planning process and to training key staff. The Government will continue to monitor local authority activity and the value for money in the grant paid by calling for annual progress reports and costed programmes of work which will be the subject of individual discussion.

  Firearms
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the prohibition under section 1 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 came into effect; and if he will give details of the Government buy-in scheme.

  Mr. Hurd
  As I stated in my reply of 20 December at column 184, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) on this matter, the new categories of prohibited weapons, including self-loading and pump action rifles, come into effect on 1 February. The buy-in scheme will run for a period of three months until 30 April. Leaflets providing full details of the scheme and incorporating a claim form are available from police stations and rifle and pistol clubs.
  96
  Owners of newly prohibited weapons are eligible to make a claim under the scheme if they legitimately acquired or entered into a contract to purchase their weapons before 23 September 1987 or have already sold their weapon since that date for less than the amount available under the scheme.

  Owners of weapons affected by the prohibition who are ineligible to apply or who do not wish to take advantage of the buy-in scheme must arrange to dispose of their weapons by not later than 30 April. They must do so either by sale to a registered firearms dealer or by transferring the weapon to such a dealer for deactivation; or by surrender to the police.

  The penalty for possession of a prohibited weapon without the appropriate authority is up to five years' imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,000 or both.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of females currently serving a prison sentence in England and Wales; what is the proportion and number of such females who have committed an offence involving robbery or violence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]Information for 30 June 1988 is given in the table.

  Population of sentenced females1 in Prison Service establisments in England and Wales: by offence group 30 June 1988

  Offence group

  Number2

  Violence against the person

  240

  Sexual offences

  15

  Robbery

  75

  Other offences

  850

  Not recorded

  80

  All offences

  1,260

  1 Provisional figures, including fine defaulters.

  2 Rounded estimates.

WALES

  Benzodiazepines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people in Wales addicted to benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Grist
  There are no official figures on the level of benzodiazepine dependence in Wales. However, an estimate given in a report published in 1986 suggested that perhaps half a million people in the United Kingdom as a whole were dependent on benzodiazepines.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prescriptions for benzodiazepines and what total quantity of benzodiazepines were dispensed by(a) community and (b) hospital pharmacists in each year from 1979 to 1987 in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of prescriptions for benzodiazepines dispensed by community pharmacists in 1979 was approximately 1,999,100 and in 1987 was 1,894,300. Information for the years 1980 to 1986 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost and information on the total quantity of benzodiazepines and the number of prescriptions dispensed by hospital pharmacists is not available centrally.
  97
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds are currently available to assist people in Wales to withdraw from benzodiazepines; and whether these funds will be increased in the future.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on services specifically targeted on benzodiazepine dependency and provided by local statutory bodies or voluntary agencies is not available centrally.

  In recent years, the Department has made available additional funds for the development of services—on a local and multi-authority basis—to combat drug misuse generally. Since April 1985, over £2·8 million has been provided in response to bids submitted by drug advisory committees and the voluntary sector. While such bids do not normally apply to specific substances, many of the proposals provide a service for people who need assistance over benzodiazepine dependence. We are currently considering bids for additional support in 1989–90.

  Mr. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many working days are being currently lost in Wales each year as a result of people withdrawing from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of people currently withdrawing from benzodiazepines in National Health Service hospitals in Wales and in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special units, with how many places, have been set up in psychiatric hospitals in Wales to assist people to withdraw from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Grist
  None as such, but there are two units in Wales (one in the north and one in the south) which specialise in services for those having problems associated with substance misuse or dependency. More generally, however, assistance and support is available through a range of services including GPs, primary care services, general psychiatric services and many voluntary groups and organisations.

  Planned provision within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales

  (£ million)

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Agriculture, fisheries and food

  78

  93

  81

  77

  82

  85

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  79

  78

  148

  157

  138

  194

  Other services

  Tourism

  6

  6

  7

  8

  8

  9

  Roads and transport

  299

  287

  286

  300

  319

  322

  Housing

  143

  118

  126

  140

  166

  166

  Other environmental services

  294

  284

  272

  293

  323

  333

  Education

  682

  665

  694

  730

  846

  922

  Arts and libraries

  28

  30

  31

  38

  38

  Health and personal social services

  915

  968

  1,035

  1,115

  1,220

  1,330

  Other public services

  31

  32

  32

  37

  38

  42

  Total other services

  2,370

  2,388

  2,482

  2,655

  2,958

  3,162

  Nationalised industries' EFL

  Aerial Monitoring
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will explain the operation of CADW's programme of aerial monitoring.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  An aerial monitoring programme was established for Wales in 1985–86 following the success of a pilot study initiated in 1983–84. The programme concentrates primarily on earthworks and field monuments with the aims of monitoring the condition of these scheduled monuments and recording the extent of the remains at each site. It is administered by CADW who provide grant-aid to the four Welsh archaeological trusts to undertake the work. It is expected that the whole of Wales will have been covered by the end of 1989 and consideration is being given as to how the programme should proceed after this date. Copies of all photographs are held in CADW and in the national monuments record held by the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales.

  National Monument Record (Staffing and Funding)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the staffing and funding of the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monument's national monument record; how many posts are unfilled through lack of finance; and what steps he intends to take to remedy this.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales is responsible for the administration, staffing and funding of the national monuments record from within its allocated resources. I understand that at present 5½ staff are engaged on this work and that there are no posts on complement unfilled.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish an analysis of expenditure shown in table 17.1 of the Government's expenditure plans 1989–90 to 1991–92, chapter 17—Wales, Cm 617, on a similar basis to the tables published in his reply of 25 January 1988,Official Report, columns 107–20.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is set out in the tables. In all the tables the totals have been derived from unrounded figures and the components may not therefore always add to the totals shown.
  99

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  National Bus Company

  26

  27

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Water Authority

  16

  13

  11

  Total nationalised industries external financing

  26

  27

  16

  13

  11

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  2,528

  2,585

  2,737

  2,904

  3,192

  3,451

  Programme 16.1: Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  £ million

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Outturn

  1988–89 Estimated Outturn

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  1991–92 Plans

  Intervention board for agricultural produce and other expenditure:

  Market support1

  20

  25

  27

  41

  25

  64

  36

  —

  —

  Total IBAP and Other EC expenditure

  20

  25

  27

  41

  25

  64

  36

  —

  —

  Domestic agriculture, fisheries and food:

  Structural Measures for Agriculture

  59

  53

  57

  52

  45

  44

  45

  —

  —

  Animal health

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other Agriculture and Food Services

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Support for the Fishing Industry2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total domestic agriculture, fisheries and food

  59

  55

  60

  55

  47

  46

  46

  —

  —

  Total agriculture, fisheries and food

  79

  80

  87

  96

  72

  110

  82

  80

  80

  1 Includes national supplement to EC market support.

  2 Includes projects assisted by EC.

  Programme 16.2 and 16.3: Industry and Employment

  £ million

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Outturn

  1988–89 Estimated Outturn

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  1991–92 Plans

  Industry:

  Regional and general industrial support

  85

  93

  108

  120

  85

  112

  121

  —

  —

  Other Public Corporations (WDA and DBRW):

  i. Voted in estimates

  46

  44

  39

  42

  64

  72

  81

  —

  —

  ii. Other

  8

  6

  5

  4

  2

  5

  4

  —

  —

  iii. Total Other Public Corporations

  53

  51

  44

  45

  66

  77

  85

  —

  —

  Total industry

  138

  144

  152

  165

  151

  189

  206

  —

  —

  Employment:

  Tourism

  5

  6

  8

  8

  9

  9

  10

  —

  —

  Careers Service—local authorities

  (i) Relevant current expenditure

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  6

  —

  —

  (ii) Non-relevant current expenditure

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  —

  —

  (iii) Total careers service

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  6

  6

  —

  —

  Total employment

  9

  10

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  —

  —

  Total industry and employment

  147

  154

  164

  178

  165

  204

  222

  220

  210

  Programme 16·4 Roads and Transport

  £ million

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  CENTRAL GOVERNMENT:

  National roads system:

  Current

  12

  12

  14

  15

  14

  14

  14

  —

  —

  Capital

  136

  93

  85

  97

  116

  1117

  138

  —

  —

  Access road grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Rural bus grants2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Freight facilities and Other grants

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  —

  100

  101

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Other (including research and development, road safety, etc.)

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  All Central Government expenditure

  149

  105

  100

  112

  130

  133

  154

  —

  —

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES:

  Relevant current spending:

  Roads3

  88

  89

  90

  98

  110

  116

  118

  —

  —

  Other transport:

  Car parks (net of receipts)

  -1

  -1

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -2

  —

  —

  Revenue support for public transport4

  4

  4

  4

  9

  8

  8

  10

  —

  —

  Concessionary fares

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  —

  —

  Total relevant current spending

  97

  98

  99

  111

  122

  129

  132

  —

  —

  Local authority capital:

  Road5

  61

  57

  65

  68

  83

  66

  69

  —

  —

  Public transport

  3

  2

  4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total local authority capital

  64

  59

  69

  70

  84

  67

  70

  —

  —

  Total local authorities

  161

  158

  168

  181

  207

  196

  203

  —

  —

  PUBLIC CORPORATIONS:

  Nationalised industries EFL's:

  National Bus Company, EFL's

  7

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other public corporations:

  New Towns

  1

  3

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grand total roads and transport

  317

  272

  275

  295

  340

  329

  356

  380

  400

  1 This figure does not take into account the cash limit increase announced by the Secretary of State on 25 January 1989.

  2 Scores as capital and current expenditure.

  3 Includes "Road safety" and "Professional and technical services" related to roads.

  4 Includes "Public transport" part of "Professional and technical services".

  5 Includes "car parks".

  Programme 16.5 ( Housing)

  £ million

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Gross capital expenditure Central government Housing Corporation Support to private sector Provision for rent by Housing Associations (including low cost home ownership)

  49

  43

  44

  51

  64

  69

  72

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  Public sector provision

  Renovation

  48

  44

  52

  78

  89

  89

  70

  —

  —

  Provision for rent

  47

  34

  26

  29

  37

  33

  21

  —

  —

  Support for private sector

  Renovation and clearance

  112

  86

  59

  75

  83

  88

  103

  —

  —

  Home Ownership

  9

  7

  4

  5

  6

  7

  3

  —

  —

  Public corporations

  New Towns

  Public sector provision

  Renovation

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Provision for rent

  3

  4

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Total public sector provision

  99

  82

  80

  107

  126

  122

  91

  —

  —

  Total support to private sector

  169

  136

  107

  132

  154

  164

  178

  —

  —

  Total renovation

  161

  130

  111

  153

  172

  177

  173

  —

  —

  102

  103

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Total provision for rent (including support for home ownership)

  108

  88

  76

  86

  108

  109

  96

  —

  —

  Total Housing Corporation

  49

  43

  44

  51

  64

  69

  72

  —

  —

  Total local authorities

  216

  171

  141

  187

  216

  217

  197

  —

  —

  Total New Towns

  4

  4

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Total gross capital expenditure

  269

  219

  187

  239

  280

  286

  269

  —

  —

  Capital receipts

  Housing Corporation

  -8

  -4

  -4

  -5

  -7

  -7

  -7

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  -79

  -91

  -71

  -82

  -84

  -112

  -143

  —

  —

  New Towns

  -5

  -7

  -5

  -2

  -6

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Total capital receipts

  -92

  -102

  -79

  -89

  -97

  -119

  -150

  —

  —

  Net capital expenditure

  Housing Corporation

  41

  39

  40

  46

  57

  62

  65

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  137

  80

  70

  105

  132

  105

  54

  —

  —

  New Towns

  -2

  -3

  -2

  -1

  -6

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Total net capital expenditure

  176

  117

  108

  150

  184

  166

  119

  —

  —

  Current Expenditure

  Central government Subsidies to:

  Housing Associations

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  2

  6

  7

  12

  10

  11

  11

  —

  —

  Housing Corporation and central government: current

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  4

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  Subsidies to revenue deficits onlocal authority housing for rent

  8

  5

  2

  2

  3

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Other current

  7

  7

  7

  8

  7

  8

  9

  —

  —

  Public corporations Subsidies to New Towns

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Total current expenditure

  19

  20

  20

  24

  23

  25

  26

  —

  —

  Total housing

  196

  137

  128

  174

  206

  192

  145

  180

  190

  Programme 16.6: Other environmental services

  £ million

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 1outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Urban Group

  Cardiff Bay U.D.C.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  16

  22

  —

  —

  Urban programme (including urban regeneration grant)

  15

  19

  25

  27

  25

  32

  34

  —

  —

  Urban regeneration grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  3

  —

  —

  Derelict land reclaimation

  11

  9

  10

  13

  13

  13

  12

  —

  —

  New Towns

  Gross expenditure

  2

  2

  3

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Receipts

  —

  1

  14

  3

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Net expenditure

  2

  1

  -11

  1

  -14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Environment

  Recreation and environmental bodies (including research)

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  7

  —

  —

  Heritage (C.A.D.W.)

  Historic buildings and ancient monuments

  2

  3

  4

  4

  6

  5

  6

  —

  —

  Local environmental services2

  Capital:

  Gross expenditure

  61

  64

  69

  90

  99

  108

  83

  —

  —

  Receipts

  14

  18

  10

  16

  25

  34

  28

  —

  —

  Net expenditure

  47

  47

  58

  74

  73

  74

  56

  —

  —

  Current expenditure

  167

  174

  178

  187

  200

  215

  222

  —

  —

  104

  105

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 1outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Other Local Authority Current Expenditure

  Local authority rate collection

  7

  8

  8

  8

  9

  10

  17

  —

  —

  Records and registrations of births, deaths and marriages

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Water

  Welsh Water Authority E.F.L.

  19

  24

  21

  17

  17

  9

  12

  —

  —

  Civil defence

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Other water services

  1

  1

  1

  2

  9

  5

  12

  —

  —

  Total other environmental services3

  276

  290

  300

  340

  356

  387

  404

  370

  380

  1 Estimated.

  2 "Local environmental services" in Wales include land drainage, flood prevention and coast protection, which in England, is included in Agriculture.

  3 Includes Welsh Water Authority E.F.L.

  Programme 16.7 Education

  £ million

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 Estimate

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Central Government

  Schools

  Primary Secondary and other

  Capital

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Current

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Higher and Further Education

  Voluntary

  Current

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Capital

  Adult Education (incl. Awards)

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Misc. education services & research Youth Services

  1

  I

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Other Educational Services

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  Support for the Welsh Language

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Total Central Government

  7

  8

  9

  10

  12

  13

  16

  —

  —

  Local Authorities

  Relevant current spending

  Schools

  Under 5s

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Primary

  190

  191

  204

  226

  252

  278

  279

  —

  —

  Secondary

  231

  238

  238

  272

  296

  318

  335

  —

  —

  Special Schools

  20

  22

  23

  23

  30

  32

  29

  —

  —

  Other (including supporting services)

  Child Guidance

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Pupil Support

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Transport

  23

  23

  23

  24

  22

  24

  29

  —

  —

  Meals and Milk

  28

  30

  28

  30

  30

  30

  31

  —

  —

  Further Education

  AFE

  29

  31

  33

  35

  37

  41

  40

  —

  —

  NAFE

  55

  56

  56

  61

  66

  72

  76

  —

  —

  Adult Education

  1

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Awards to Students

  8

  9

  9

  9

  8

  9

  12

  —

  —

  Miscellaneous education services

  Youth Services

  6

  6

  6

  7

  6

  7

  9

  —

  —

  Other Education Services

  6

  5

  7

  9

  14

  17

  20

  —

  —

  Administration

  31

  32

  33

  33

  31

  34

  41

  —

  —

  Total Relevant Current spending

  636

  655

  672

  740

  806

  877

  916

  —

  —

  Local Authority Capital

  35

  34

  29

  40

  50

  49

  51

  —

  —

  Total Local Authorities

  672

  689

  701

  780

  856

  925

  968

  —

  —

  Total Education

  679

  697

  710

  790

  868

  939

  984

  1,010

  1,040

  106 107

  Programme 16.8 Arts and Libraries

  £ million

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 Estimate

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Central Government

  National Library of Wales

  Current

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Capital

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  National Museum of Wales

  Current

  5

  6

  7

  7

  7

  8

  9

  —

  —

  Capital

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  4

  8

  —

  —

  Total Central Government

  9

  10

  11

  11

  13

  15

  21

  —

  —

  Local Authorities

  Relevant current spending

  Libraries

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  21

  22

  —

  —

  Museums and Galleries

  2

  1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Total relevant current spending

  17

  17

  18

  20

  22

  24

  25

  —

  —

  Local Authority capital

  Libraries

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Museums and Galleries

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total Local Authority Capital

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Total Local Authorities

  19

  19

  21

  23

  24

  27

  26

  —

  —

  Total Libraries, Museums and Arts

  28

  29

  32

  34

  37

  42

  47

  50

  50

  Programme 16.9 Health and Personal Social Services

  £ million

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 Estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  HEALTH SERVICES:

  Hospital and community health services:

  Current expenditure:

  Gross

  558

  595

  641

  683

  762

  851

  900

  —

  —

  Charges and receipts

  11

  7

  13

  14

  15

  15

  18

  —

  —

  Net

  547

  588

  627

  669

  747

  836

  881

  —

  —

  Capital expenditure:

  Gross

  50

  53

  55

  61

  61

  67

  78

  —

  —

  Receipts

  1

  2

  2

  3

  2

  10

  4

  —

  —

  Net

  49

  52

  53

  58

  59

  58

  73

  —

  —

  Family practitioner services:

  Current expenditure:

  Gross

  202

  221

  234

  253

  280

  314

  342

  —

  —

  Charges and receipts

  17

  18

  18

  19

  21

  25

  30

  —

  —

  Net

  185

  203

  216

  233

  259

  289

  312

  —

  —

  Capital expenditure (net)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central health and miscellaneous services:

  Current expenditure:

  Gross

  15

  19

  22

  27

  33

  40

  48

  —

  —

  Charges and receipts

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Net

  15

  18

  22

  27

  32

  40

  47

  —

  —

  Capital expenditure (net)

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total National Health services:

  Current expenditure:

  Gross

  776

  835

  897

  963

  1,075

  1,205

  1,289

  —

  —

  Net

  747

  809

  865

  930

  1,038

  1,165

  1,240

  —

  —

  Capital expenditure:

  Gross

  50

  54

  56

  62

  62

  68

  78

  —

  —

  Net

  49

  52

  55

  59

  60

  58

  74

  —

  —

  PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICE:

  Central government services:

  Current expenditure

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Local authority services

  Current expenditure:

  Gross

  137

  140

  150

  161

  177

  192

  205

  —

  —

  Charges

  24

  23

  25

  27

  29

  32

  34

  —

  —

  Net

  113

  117

  126

  134

  148

  161

  171

  —

  —

  Capital expenditure:

  Gross

  6

  7

  5

  8

  11

  10

  9

  —

  —

  Receipts

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Net

  5

  6

  5

  8

  10

  10

  8

  —

  —

  108

  109

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 Estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Total personal social services:

  Current expenditure:

  Gross

  138

  141

  151

  162

  178

  193

  206

  —

  —

  Net

  114

  118

  126

  135

  149

  162

  173

  —

  —

  Capital expenditure:

  Gross

  6

  7

  5

  8

  11

  10

  9

  —

  —

  Net

  5

  6

  5

  8

  10

  10

  8

  —

  —

  Total health and personal social services:

  Current expenditure:

  Gross

  914

  977

  1,048

  1,125

  1,253

  1,398

  1,495

  —

  —

  Charges and receipts

  53

  48

  56

  60

  66

  72

  83

  —

  —

  Net

  861

  928

  992

  1,065

  1,187

  1,327

  1,413

  —

  —

  Capital expenditure:

  Gross

  56

  60

  62

  70

  72

  77

  87

  —

  —

  Receipts

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  10

  5

  —

  —

  Net

  54

  59

  60

  67

  70

  68

  82

  —

  —

  Total health and personal social services current and capital (net)

  915

  986

  1,051

  1,131

  1,256

  1,394

  1,495

  1,560

  1,610

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of gross and net public sector capital spending by his Department by both central government and local authorities for 1988–89 and for each of the next three years, at current prices and at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]:
  Information about public sector capital spending by the Department from 1983–84 to 1991–92 was given in table 21.1.11 of the 1989 public expenditure White Paper "Supplementary Analyses and Index", Cm. 621.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General when copies of leaflets, which call for an end to immigration to the United Kingdom and are headed, "Civil War in Bradford," were passed to the Crown Prosecution Service; what organisation and address is shown on the leaflets distributed in Bradford recently; and when he expects the Crown Prosecution Service to reach any decision about prosecuting those responsible for the production and distribution of such leaflets.

  The Attorney-General
  A copy of a leaflet headed "Civil War in Bradford" was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service in West Yorkshire on 25 January 1989. The leaflet contains the address of the Monday Club, 4 Orlando Road, London SW4. On 27 January 1989, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that the production and distribution of the leaflet did not contravene the criminal law.

  Criminal Justice Act 1988
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Attorney-General how he envisages exercising the power to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, after it comes into force on 1 February.
  110
  The Attorney-General
  I shall exercise this important power conscientiously and with discrimination. I do not envisage that the cases will be numerous in which it will be appropriate to use it. It applies to sentencing for offences triable only on indictment. These are the more harmful offences, tending to give rise to the greatest public concern. Reference is available only for a sentence that is characterised by undue leniency, not for one that is no more than arguably on the lenient side.

  A strict time limit is imposed for a reference. Application to the court must be made by me within 28 days of the sentence being passed, and it is accordingly important that steps are taken to put the necessary machinery in action as soon as possible. I therefore hope that those who wish to make representations will do so, in the first instance, to the authority responsible for conducting the relevant prosecution. In the majority of cases the prosecution will have been conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service and in those cases representations should accordingly be made to the Director of Public Prosecution.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South African (Prisons)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government about the detention and torture of children in South African prisons.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made frequent representations to the South African Government, both bilaterally and with our European partners, to express our concern about human rights abuses including reports of maltreatment of both children and adults. We have made clear our view that the South African Government should release all those detained without charge.

  Minority Languages
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there is any provision for a new commissioner of the European Community to take the oath in Welsh or in Gaelic.
  111
  Mrs. Chalker
  The treaty does not specify the language to be used when giving the solemn undertaking. Commissioner MacSharry gave it in Irish.

  Palestinian Refugees
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the response by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to recommendation 1090 [1988] on the situation of the Palestine refugees.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Committee of Ministers decided to bring recommendation 1090 (1988) to the attention of the Governments of member states.

  Eastern Europe (Religion)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the response by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to recommendation 1086 [1988] on the situation of the Church and freedom of religion in Eastern Europe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Committee of Ministers decided to bring recommendation 1086 (1988) to the attention of the Governments of member states and intend to submit it for discussion by national experts on the CSCE.

  Incomes
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the most recent annual average income per head for(a) the seven Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, (b) the Warsaw Pact countries including Russia and (c) China.

  Mrs. Chalker
  GDP per head (in United States dollars) in the major seven OECD countries in 1987 was as follows:

  At current prices and current exchange rates

  At current prices and purchasing power parity

  USA

  18,338

  18,338

  Japan

  19,465

  13,182

  West Germany

  18,280

  13,323

  France

  15,818

  12,803

  United Kingdom

  11,765

  12,340

  Italy

  13,224

  12,254

  Canada

  16,019

  17,211

  Source: OECD, Department of Economics and Statistics: National Accounts 1960–1987.

  Because the currencies of the Warsaw pact countries are not fully convertible, conversion of local currency output estimates to dollars is not straightforward. Different procedures can produce very different results. The first column of figures below shows estimates of GNP per head calculated by the IBRD for the three members of the Warsaw pact who are also members of the IMF/IBRD. The second column shows estimates for all members of the Warsaw pact published by a United States Government agency:
  112

  GNP per head at current prices and 3-year moving average exchange rates1 1987 $

  GNP per head at current prices2 1987 $

  Hungary

  2,240

  8,264

  Poland

  1,920

  6,883

  Romania

  1,500–3,000

  6,376

  Bulgaria

  n/a

  7,200

  Czechoslovakia

  n/a

  9,705

  GDR

  n/a

  11,873

  USSR

  n/a

  8,363

  1 Source: World Bank Atlas, 1988.

  2 Source: Economic Handbook, 1985—an unclassified publication of the CIA Directorate of Intelligence.

  The People's Republic of China's GNP per head (at current prices and three-year moving average exchange rates) is estimated by the IBRD at $300 in 1987. Figures for Warsaw pact countries and for China should be treated with caution.

  Weapons Technology
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to use Britain's presidency of the Western European Union to further discussions on the harmonisation of weapons technology research for the 21st century.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  NATO and, for its European members, the independent European programme group, are the operational fora in which allies examine how they can harmonise research in this area. The Western European Union gave political support in this work in the platform on European security interests adopted in The Hague on 27 October 1987.

  Namibia
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs say what contribution in terms of cost and personnel Her Majesty's Government proposes to make to the United Nations force to supervise the elections and independence of Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 21 December 1988 at column 274.

  Baby Seal Skins
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any discussion with members of the European Commission regarding the apparent breaking of European Community directive 85/444/EC, amending 84/129/EC, through the import into the European Community of baby seal skins referred to by Mr. Clinton Davies on 14 April 1988.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Unita
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for Her Majesty's Government's policies
  113
  Of President Bush's letter to Mr. Savimbi indicating that his Government would continue appropriate and effective assistance to Unita.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It remains our policy not to provide assistance to Unita although we maintain contact form time to time at official level.

  European Community (Spanish Presidency)
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the objectives which the Spanish have identified for achievment during their presidency of the European Communities.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Spanish objectives for achievement during their presidency were identified in the programme speech given by the Spanish Foreign Minister to the European Parliament on 17 January. They included further progress to complete the single market, social area, monetary co-operation, research and development, the environment, and the Community's external relations.

  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 13 February. The Commission is expected to present proposals for harmonising the taxation of savings. The Council may also consider a further extension of the new community instrument (NIC V), and may need to consider two own resources implementing regulations.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 13 and 14 February to discuss 1989 CAP price-fixing proposals, aid for the production of grain legumes and extensification. It may also consider beef balance sheets, controls in the wine sector, and veterinary and phytosanitary harmonisation measures.

  The Foreign Affairs Council, meeting on 20 and 21 February, will review progress on resolving the dispute between the EC and the United States over hormone-treated beef, discuss the EC's position for the San Jose V meeting with central American states in San Pedro de Sula, Honduras 27 and 28 February; and adopt a position for the EC/Tunisia co-operation council, to be held in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Counil. It may also discuss: the outcome of the EC/ACP ministerial meeting in Brazzaville on 16 and 17 February, where negotiations on a successor to the present Lome convention will continue; preparations for the EC/EFTA informal ministerial meeting to be held alongside the Foreign Affairs Council in March; draft mandates for negotiations on trade and co-operation agreements with Poland and Bulgaria and EC/Israel purchase tax discrimination.

  The Fisheries Council will meet on 23 February to discuss autonomous tariff quotas and possibly the EC/USSR fish agreement.

  The Internal Market Council on 27 February will discuss a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single market.
  114

THE ARTS

  Benjamin Banks
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will visit Salisbury in April to visit the exhibition in the museum celebrating the life and work of the eighteenth century violinist Benjamin Banks.

  Mr. Luce
  I will be in touch with my hon. Friend to see whether it will be possible for me to visit Salisbury in April.

  Opera North
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to undertake a visit to Opera North.

  Mr. Luce
  I was sorry not to have been able to visit Opera North as part of its 10th anniversary celebrations in 1988, but I hope to attend a performance in the future.

  Public Library Services
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the number of responses so far received by his Department to the Green Paper on financing our public library services; and if he will give the number of those responses in favour of the proposals and the number of those opposed.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall shortly be making a statement on the consultation exercise. I shall then be in a position to give a more detailed answer to this question.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Appointments
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the total cost of any European Economic Community appointments either in the United Kingdom or the rest of the European Economic Community paid for by the Treasury.

  Mr. Brooke
  Under the detached national experts scheme, Government employees from member states may be temporarily seconded to the European Commission. In such cases the member states continue to pay the basic salaries of the officials concerned.

  Comprehensive information about the total cost of United Kingdom-paid salaries under this scheme is not available.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have any plans to introduce income tax relief on premiums for private medical insurance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lawson
  In the White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm 555) the Government today announced a new income tax relief on premiums for private medical insurance for those aged 60 and over. The relief will be given at the basic rate by deduction at source (in a similar way to the MIRAS arrangement for mortgagees). It will be available either where an individual aged 60 or over pays his or her own premiums on an eligible policy, or where
  115
  someone else, such as a relative, pays on their behalf. Where higher rate relief is due, the additional amount will be given by the tax office, for example by adjustment to the PAYE code or in an assessment.

  Legislation to introduce the relief will be contained in the next Finance Bill, and will take effect from 6 April 1990. I have authorised the Inland Revenue to consult the medical insurance industry urgently about the details of the relief.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to collect information on persons whose entitlement to unemployment benefit is disallowed because they are not available for work.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures are compiled quarterly of the number of persons whose entitlement to unemployment benefit is disallowed because they are considered not to be available for work. They are included in the analysis of all decisions made by adjudication officers published each half-year by the Department of Social Security.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been spent advertising employment training; and how much this is per filled place.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of approximately £7 million has been spent on advertising employment training in the period July to December 1988. A total of £4·2 million of this was spent in July and August to raise employers' awareness of the importance of training, in readiness for the launch of the programme in September. Following the launch, a further £2·8 million was spent on advertising to potential trainees. So far, there have been 141,000 people training on the programme.

  Construction Workers
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction workers are unemployed.

  Mr. Lee
  Information from the labour force survey indicates that in spring 1987 there were an estimated 107,000 people in Great Britain aged 16 or over who were currently unemployed and whose last employment (within the previous three years) was as a construction worker. An occupational analysis of the Department's monthly claimant unemployment count is not available.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered disabled people were in employment on 1 January; and how many were in employment five years ago.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of employers does not 116
  operate the 3 per cent. quota for employing disabled people; and how this differs from the percentage five years ago.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1988 a total of 76 per cent. of employers within scope of the quota scheme employed less than 3 per cent. of people registered as disabled compared with 69 per cent. in 1983. The quota scheme is being considered as part of my Department's internal review of services to the disabled.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the last five years in achieving the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Lee
  A total of 93,500 people with disabilities, including some with severe disabilities, were placed in employment through jobcentres in 1987–88 compared with 63,200 in 1983–84. Over the same period, the number of people with severe disabilities supported in the sheltered employment programme rose from 14,936 to 18,413.

  Support for employment and training programmes specifically for people with disabilities has generally been maintained between 1983–84 and 1987–88. At the same time, increasing attention has been given to improving access to the Department's general employment and training programmes. It is estimated that in 1987–88 some 51,000 people with disabilities were accepted on to these programmes.

  The Department has also given close attention to promoting the adoption by employers of positive policies towards the employment of people with disabilities—in particular through the establishment of the disablement advisory service and the publication and distribution of the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing employment in manufacturing industry by county using the data from the last three censuses of employment; and if he will also state the intercensal change for each county in an index form with the earliest of the three censuses of employment as the base.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information from censuses of employment taken in June 1978, September 1981 and September 1984 is given in the table. Because of changes in the standard industrial classification, and in the compilation of the county data, the June 1978 figures are not strictly comparable with the figures for later years. Indices using June 1978 as base cannot therefore be meaningfully calculated.

  Employees in employment in manufacturing industries

  Counties

  June1 1978

  September2 1981

  September2 1984

  South East

  Bedfordshire

  88·1

  71·5

  67·8

  Berkshire

  89·1

  85·4

  76·5

  Buckinghamshire

  65·3

  65·7

  66·8

  East Sussex

  37·5

  36·4

  32·7

  Essex

  156·7

  140·4

  119·5

  Greater London

  768·8

  684·6

  569·0

  Hampshire

  166·6

  153·3

  146·7

  Hertfordshire

  151·5

  132·4

  118·1

  Isle of Wight

  10·4

  9·0

  8·8

  Kent

  137·7

  118·3

  103·5

  117

  Counties

  June1 1978

  September2 1981

  September2 1984

  Oxfordshire

  54·2

  47·6

  43·8

  Surrey

  81·3

  77·4

  74·5

  West Sussex

  60·9

  61·1

  58·3

  East Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  61·5

  60·7

  68·2

  Norfolk

  71·3

  63·3

  63·2

  Suffolk

  67·0

  61·9

  58·3

  South West

  Avon

  110·4

  94·9

  89·2

  Cornwall

  21·3

  23·6

  22·3

  Devon

  67·0

  68·9

  69·1

  Dorset

  47·6

  44·3

  41·2

  Gloucestershire

  71·1

  65·2

  57·6

  Somerset

  48·2

  46·0

  45·6

  Wiltshire

  62·8

  52·6

  51·2

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  76·5

  67·9

  64·3

  Shropshire

  39·2

  32·0

  33·0

  Staffordshire

  163·8

  144·3

  141·9

  Warwickshire

  55·5

  61·6

  56·3

  West Midlands

  651·0

  494·8

  413·7

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  161·6

  133·2

  122·2

  Leicestershire

  160·5

  150·5

  140·9

  Lincolnshire

  50·7

  44·3

  40·7

  Northamptonshire

  88·6

  73·7

  69·5

  Nottinghamshire

  136·9

  131·5

  115·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Humberside

  110·5

  92·1

  81·9

  North Yorkshire

  56·1

  53·5

  49·7

  South Yorkshire

  206·3

  158·6

  122·4

  West Yorkshire

  336·2

  274·6

  230·8

  North West

  Cheshire

  140·5

  116·7

  105·9

  Greater Manchester

  443·2

  345·8

  291·3

  Lancashire

  210·9

  182·5

  153·6

  Merseyside

  203·1

  154·7

  119·8

  118

  Counties

  June1 1978

  September2 1981

  September2 1984

  North

  Cumbria

  69·8

  56·9

  49·6

  Cleveland

  93·7

  74·9

  53·3

  Durham

  74·6

  62·1

  54·7

  Northumberland

  23·0

  19·5

  19·3

  Tyne and Wear

  162·4

  126·0

  99·0

  Wales

  Clwyd

  43·9

  33·7

  35·2

  Dyfed

  23·6

  17·1

  15·9

  Gwent

  65·8

  52·8

  46·1

  Gwynedd

  11·8

  11·5

  9·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  70·8

  52·5

  44·7

  Powys

  5·8

  7·0

  6·9

  South Glamorgan

  300

  26·6

  25·2

  West Glamorgan

  57·9

  36·9

  28·8

  Scotland (Region and Islands areas)

  Borders

  14·2

  12·9

  12·6

  Central

  38·2

  31·1

  22·8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11·7

  12·2

  11·3

  Fife

  42·8

  40·0

  35·8

  Grampian

  36·9

  36·8

  35·2

  Highlands

  12·6

  12·4

  10·2

  Lothians

  67·2

  66·2

  55·3

  Strathclyde

  331·3

  249·8

  215·4

  Tayside

  45·5

  37·1

  32·1

  Orkney Islands

  0·5

  0·7

  0·5

  Shetland Islands

  1·1

  1·1

  1·2

  Western Isles

  0·9

  1·5

  1·2

  1 Jobcentre based information: 1968 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Orders III-XIX.

  2 Ward based information (ward boundaries as at September 1981): 1980 SIC Divisions 2–4.

  Note:

  Jobcentre and ward based aggregates are not strictly comparable. The former are based on an amalgamation of jobcentre areas which may not be coterminous with the county boundary and, unlike the ward based aggregates, they include no allowance for non response and undetected duplication in census returns.
  119

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the unadjusted figures for December 1985 and June 1988, for each region and nationally, giving data for men and women separately and in total, of (a) the number of unemployed for each date and the percentage change between the dates, and (b) the number of employed for each date and the percentage difference between the dates in total and broken down by employees in employment, self-employment, Her Majesty's Forces and work-related government training programmes.

  Mr. Lee
  Table A shows the number of unemployed claimants for each region and the United Kingdom at December 1985 and June 1988, together with the percentage changes over the period. These unadjusted figures are affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and also by seasonal influences.

  Table B shows the available information for the civilian workforce in employment. Figures for Her Majesty's forces are not available below national level. Comparisons of data for December 1985 and June 1988 are affected by seasonal variations.

  Table A

  Unemployment, unadjusted

  December 1985

  June 1988

  Percentage change December 1985 to June 1988

  Males

  South East

  524,118

  342,614

  -34·6

  East Anglia

  54,346

  32,777

  -39·7

  London

  277,856

  205,019

  -26·2

  South West

  135,139

  84,350

  -37·6

  West Midlands

  239,596

  162,554

  -32·2

  Table B

  Civilian workforce in employment, unadjusted for the effects of seasonal variations

  Thousands

  Region

  December 1985

  June 1988

  Percentage change December 1985 to June 1988

  Males

  South East

  Employees in employment

  4,054

  4,052

  -·0

  Self-employed1

  677

  813

  20·1

  Work-related government training programmes

  22

  30

  37·8

  Civilian workforce in employment

  4,753

  4,895

  3·0

  East Anglia

  Employees in employment

  436

  483

  10·9

  Self-employed1

  84

  91

  8·3

  Work-related government training programmes

  4

  6

  51·6

  Civilian workforce in employment

  524

  581

  10·8

  South West

  Employees in employment

  863

  864

  ·2

  Self-employed1

  190

  210

  10·5

  Work-related government training programmes

  10

  15

  49·2

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,063

  1,089

  2·5

  West Midlands

  Employees in employment

  1,154

  1,172

  1·6

  120

  December 1985

  June 1988

  Percentage change December 1985 to June 1988

  East Midlands

  136,372

  100,898

  -26·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  217,137

  164,859

  -24·1

  North West

  315,505

  233,497

  -26·0

  Northern

  169,556

  130,611

  -23·0

  Wales

  128,324

  91,101

  -29·0

  Scotland

  245,250

  204,432

  - 16·6

  Northern Ireland

  88,605

  84,348

  -4·8

  United Kingdom

  2,253,948

  1,632,041

  -27·6

  Females

  South East

  255,650

  158,970

  -37·8

  East Anglia

  28,886

  18,139

  -37·2

  London

  124,027

  85,754

  -30·9

  South West

  75,193

  46,523

  - 38·1

  West Midlands

  106,044

  74,893

  -29·4

  East Midlands

  64,822

  45,346

  -30·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  92,986

  68,996

  -25·8

  North West

  133,492

  95,949

  -28·1

  Northern

  68,032

  48,264

  -2·1

  Wales

  53,172

  36,016

  -32·3

  Scotland

  107,999

  84,360

  -21·9

  Northern Ireland

  32,865

  31,292

  -4·8

  United Kingdom

  1,019,141

  708,748

  -30·5

  Totals

  South East

  779,768

  501,584

  -35·7

  East Anglia

  83,232

  50,916

  -38·8

  London

  401,883

  290,773

  -27·7

  South West

  210,332

  130,873

  -37·8

  West Midlands

  345,640

  237,447

  -31·3

  East Midlands

  201,194

  146,244

  -27·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  310,123

  233,855

  -24·6

  North West

  448,997

  329,446

  -26·6

  Northern

  237,588

  178,875

  -24·7

  Wales

  181,496

  127,117

  -30·0

  Scotland

  353,249

  288,792

  - 18·3

  Northern Ireland

  121,470

  115,640

  -4·8

  United Kingdom

  3,273,089

  2,340,789

  -28·5

  121

  Region

  December 1985

  June 1988

  Percentage change December 1985 to June 1988

  Self-employed1

  145

  169

  16·6

  Work-related government training programmes

  13

  24

  83·6

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,311

  1,365

  4·1

  East Midlands

  Employees in employment

  843

  863

  2·4

  Self-employed1

  126

  149

  18·3

  Work-related government training programmes

  11

  15

  33·9

  Civilian workforce in employment

  980

  1,027

  4·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Employees in employment

  1,002

  986

  -1·6

  Self-employed1

  163

  184

  12·9

  Work-related government training programmes

  13

  24

  93·1

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,178

  1,194

  1·4

  North West

  Employees in employment

  1,234

  1,185

  -4·0

  Self-employed1

  195

  216

  10·8

  Work-related government training programmes

  15

  29

  100·0

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,444

  1,430

  -1·0

  North

  Employees in employment

  604

  605

  ·3

  Self-employed1

  79

  80

  1·3

  Work-related government training programmes

  9

  18

  112·7

  Civilian workforce in employment

  691

  704

  1·8

  Wales

  Employees in employment

  491

  477

  -2·8

  Self-employed1

  116

  108

  -6·9

  Work-related government training programmes

  7

  13

  90·2

  Civilian workforce in employment

  614

  598

  -2·5

  Scotland

  Employees in employment

  1,031

  996

  -3·5

  Self-employed1

  158

  157

  -·6

  Work-related government training programmes

  12

  25

  111·9

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,201

  1,177

  -2·0

  Northern Ireland

  Employees in employment

  269

  262

  -2·5

  Self-employed1

  53

  53

  -·2

  Work-related government training programmes

  6

  5

  -11·4

  Civilian workforce in employment

  327

  320

  -2·3

  United Kingdom

  Employees in employment

  1,980

  11,945

  -·3

  Self-employed1

  1,982

  2,228

  12·4

  HM forces

  307

  300

  -2·5

  Work-related government training programmes

  120

  205

  70·2

  Workforce in employment

  14,390

  14,678

  2·0

  Females

  South East

  Employees in employment

  3,311

  3,516

  6·2

  Self-employed1

  227

  274

  20·7

  Work-related government training programmes

  16

  21

  26·1

  Civilian workforce in employment

  3,554

  3,811

  7·2

  East Anglia

  Employees in employment

  314

  351

  11·6

  Self-employed1

  26

  43

  65·4

  Work-related government training programmes

  3

  4

  23·9

  Civilian workforce in employment

  343

  398

  15·8

  122

  123

  Region

  December 1985

  June 1988

  Percentage change December 1985 to June 1988

  South West

  Employees in employment

  685

  735

  7·2

  Self-employed1

  64

  77

  20·3

  Work-related government training programme

  8

  10

  28·7

  Civilian workforce in employment

  757

  822

  8·6

  West Midlands

  Employees in employment

  871

  924

  6·1

  Self-employed1

  41

  47

  14·6

  Work-related government training programmes

  11

  18

  62·5

  Civilian workforce in employment

  923

  989

  7·1

  East Midlands

  Employees in employment

  660

  696

  5·6

  Self-employed1

  36

  48

  33·3

  Work-related government training programmes

  9

  10

  14·7

  Civilian workforce in employment

  705

  755

  7·1

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  Employees in employment

  792

  833

  5·2

  Self-employed1

  56

  64

  14·3

  Work-related government training programmes

  11

  16

  50·9

  Civilian workforce in employment

  859

  913

  6·3

  North West

  Employees in employment

  1,062

  1,079

  1·6

  Self-employed1

  72

  73

  1·4

  Work-related government training programmes

  13

  20

  53·3

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,147

  1,172

  2·2

  North

  Employees in employment

  476

  500

  4·9

  Self-employed1

  26

  32

  231

  Work-related government training programmes

  8

  12

  52·8

  Civilian workforce in employment

  510

  544

  6·6

  Wales

  Employees in employment

  381

  396

  3·9

  Self-employed1

  34

  46

  35·3

  Work-related government training programmes

  6

  8

  36·2

  Civilian workforce in employment

  421

  450

  69

  Scotland

  Employees in employment

  866

  892

  3·1

  Self-employed1

  45

  45

  0·0

  Work-related government training programmes

  9

  17

  85·3

  Civilian workforce in employment

  920

  954

  3·7

  Northern Ireland

  Employees in employment

  233

  235

  0·8

  Self-employed1

  7

  7

  -1·8

  Work-related government training programmes

  3

  3

  -16·7

  Civilian workforce in employment

  244

  245

  0·4

  United Kingdom

  Employees in employment

  9,653

  10,158

  5·2

  Self-employed1

  636

  757

  18·9

  HM Forces

  16

  16

  -0·6

  Work-related government training programmes

  97

  138

  42·4

  Workforce in employment

  10,402

  11,069

  6·4

  Total South East

  Employees in employment

  7,365

  7,568

  2·8

  Self-employed1

  904

  1,087

  20·2

  124

  125

  Region

  December 1985

  June 1988

  Percentage change December 1985 to June 1988

  Work-related government training programmes

  38

  50

  32·8

  Civilian workforce in employment

  8,307

  8,705

  4·8

  East Anglia

  Employees in employment

  750

  834

  11·2

  Self-employed1

  110

  134

  21·8

  Work-related government training programmes

  7

  10

  39·7

  Civilian workforce in employment

  867

  978

  12·8

  South West

  Employees in employment

  1,548

  1,599

  3·3

  Self-employed1

  254

  287

  13·0

  Work-related government training programmes

  18

  25

  40·2

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,819

  1,911

  5·0

  West Midlands

  Employees in employment

  2,025

  2,096

  3·5

  Self-employed1

  186

  216

  16·1

  Work-related government training programmes

  24

  41

  74·0

  Civilian workforce in employment

  2,235

  2,354

  5·3

  East Midlands

  Employees in employment

  1,502

  1,559

  3·8

  Self-employed1

  162

  197

  21·6

  Work-related government training programmes

  21

  26

  25·4

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,685

  1,782

  5·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Employees in employment

  1,795

  1,819

  1·4

  Self-employed1

  219

  248

  13·2

  Work-related government training programmes

  23

  40

  73·8

  Civilian workforce in employment

  2,037

  2,108

  3·5

  North West

  Employees in employment

  2,297

  2,264

  -1·4

  Self-employed1

  267

  289

  8·2

  Work-related government training programmes

  28

  49

  77·9

  Civilian workforce in employment

  2,591

  2,603

  0·4

  North

  Employees in employment

  1,080

  1,105

  2·3

  Self-employed1

  105

  112

  6·7

  Work-related government training programmes

  17

  30

  84·0

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,202

  1,248

  3·8

  Wales

  Employees in employment

  872

  874

  0·2

  Self-employed1

  150

  154

  2·7

  Work-related government training programmes

  12

  21

  65·8

  Civilian workforce in employment

  1,035

  1,048

  1·3

  Scotland

  Employees in employment

  1,897

  1,888

  -0·5

  Self-employed1

  203

  202

  -0·5

  Work-related government training programmes

  21

  41

  100·2

  Civilian workforce in employment

  2,121

  2,131

  0·5

  Northern Ireland

  Employees in employment

  502

  497

  -1·0

  Self-employed1

  60

  60

  -0·4

  Work-related government training programmes

  9

  8

  -13·4

  Civilian workforce in employment

  571

  565

  -1·1

  United Kingdom

  Employees in employment

  21,632

  22,103

  2·2

  126

  127

  Region

  December 1985

  June 1988

  Percentage change December 1985 to June 1988

  Self-employed1

  2,619

  2,985

  14·0

  Her Majesty's Forces

  323

  316

  -2·4

  Work-related government training programmes

  217

  343

  57·8

  Workforce in employment

  24,792

  25,746

  3·9

  1 Self-employed figures for June 1988 are projections.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will indicate for each year since 1979 and for each country and region of the United Kingdom(a) the number of female employees in employment, (b) the number of females in full-time employment, (c) the number of females in part-time employment; and if he will express (c) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Lee
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 January 1989, c. 742]: I regret that my reply of 26 January 1989 contained an error in referring to the data for Northern Ireland. Estimates of full and part-time employment for Northern Ireland are made, but only at census of employment dates and the data for female employees in employment are set out in the table:

  September 1981

  September 1984

  All

  224

  229

  Of which full-time

  147

  147

  Part-time

  78

  81

  Part-time employees as percentage of all employees

  34·8

  35·6

  Employment Training (Child Care Allowance)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make the child care allowance, previously confined to single parents on employment training, available to all trainees with children.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: My right hon. Friend is considering the implications of the recent industrial tribunal decision about the arrangements for making child care payments in employment training.

  Women With Children
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help is available to women with children, who wish to undertake a course of training, who are not registered as unemployed and who cannot afford a child minder; what training courses are available; and what support is available to enable such women to undertake training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]: Women aged 18 to 59 in the circumstances described are eligible for the full range of training opportunities under employment training if they are:

  (a) returning to the labour market after an absence of two years or more for domestic reasons;

  (b) the partner of someone who is claiming benefit for them as a dependant and satisfies the eligibility rules for Employment Training;

  (c) eeking training in enterprise, or for skill shortage occupations or require help with English as a Second Language or have a disability; or

  (d) a lone parent on an Income Support Order Book for at least 6 months and whose youngest child is of school age.

  128
  All trainees on employment training receive a weekly allowance equivalent to any state benefit entitlement before starting the programme plus at least £10 and help with travel costs over £5 per week. All lone parents on the programme are entitled to child care assistance of up to £50 per week per child. Women trainees may also be able to attend part-time where they have continuing domestic commitments which prevent full-time participation.

  The full range of YTS opportunities is also available to women in a similar position and who are under the age of 18 and who satisfy the normal eligibility rules. YTS trainees are entitled to an alowance of £29·50 per week rising to £35 per week in the second year.

SCOTLAND

  European Reprocessing Plant
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make an announcement on the planning application for the European demonstration reprocessing plant.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering the report of the public local inquiry into the proposed development and he is not yet in a position to predict a date for the announcement of his decision.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sites and hectarages of sites for which compensation payments are made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to prevent damage to areas of special conservation interest and the sums of compensation paid in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Compensation payments under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are made by the NCC, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Details of individual sites and payments are confidential, but data on the numbers and costs of such payments are published in the council's annual report, copies of which are in the Library.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what methods are used by him to gauge public opinion on the competence of the board and general manager of Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have recently commissioned a market research study of the National Health Service in Scotland. The sample size will enable some analysis of opinion at board level to be undertaken.
  129
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the non-hospital properties currently owned by the Greater Glasgow health board; and what is the board's assessment of their total value.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board currently administers over 400 non-hospital properties of which it estimates the total value to be about £14·5 million.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many empty dwelling houses are owned by Greater Glasgow health board.

  Hospital medical and dental consultants in Greater Glasgow Health Board; by hospital, specialty and type of contract Number at 30 September 1987

  Location and specialty

  Whole time

  Maximum part time

  part time

  Honorary

  Total all

  Health Board HQ

  Occupational health

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Clinics East District

  Orthodon and paeditric dentistry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  STD

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Forensic psychiatry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3

  1

  0

  0

  4

  Belvidere Hospital

  Orthopaedic surgery

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Dermatology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Respiratory medicine

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Radiotherapy

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Haematology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  0

  0

  1

  6

  Canniesburn Hospital

  Ophthalmology

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Plastic surgery

  0

  4

  0

  0

  4

  Oral surgery and medicine

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Pathology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  7

  0

  0

  9

  Duke Street Hospital

  Psychiatry-mentally ill

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Psychotherapy

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3

  1

  0

  0

  4

  Gartloch Hospital

  Psychiatry-mentally Ill

  4

  1

  0

  0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  4

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Glasgow Dental Hospital

  Orthodon and Paediatric Dentistry

  2

  0

  0

  4

  6

  Oral Surgery and Medicine

  4

  0

  0

  9

  13

  Restorative Dentistry

  3

  0

  0

  9

  12

  Pathology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9

  0

  0

  23

  32

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  General Surgery

  7

  1

  0

  4

  12

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  2

  2

  0

  0

  4

  Ent Surgery

  1

  2

  0

  1

  4

  Urology

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  General Medicine

  5

  0

  0

  7

  12

  Cardiology

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Endocrin and Diabetes

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Neurology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Dermatology

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Nephrology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Rheumatology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  130
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The board is responsible for 71 such properties, of which 47 are in process of being sold.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultants are employed by Greater Glasgow health board; if he will give a breakdown by hospital and specialty; and if he will show how many of the consultants by specialty are employed on a full-time or part-time basis.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information is shown in the table below.
  131

  Location and specialty

  Whole time

  Maximum part time

  Part time

  Honorary

  Total all

  Respiratory Medicine

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  STD

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Radiodiagnosis

  4

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Radiotherapy

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Medical Oncology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Anaesthetics

  14

  4

  0

  4

  22

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  4

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Accident and Emergency

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Haematology

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Pathology

  3

  0

  0

  3

  6

  Clinical Chemistry

  2

  0

  1

  2

  5

  Microbiology

  3

  0

  0

  2

  5

  Immunology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Virology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  66

  12

  1

  28

  107

  Glasgow Royal Maternity

  Medical Paediatrics

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  2

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Pathology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  1

  0

  1

  7

  Lightburn Hospital

  Geriatric Medicine

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Lennox Castle Hospital

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Ruchill Hospital

  General Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Respiratory Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Communicable Disease

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Pathology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Microbiology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Virology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6

  0

  0

  2

  8

  Stobhill Hospital

  General Surgery

  4

  2

  0

  0

  6

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Ent-Surgery

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Ophthalmology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Urology

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  General Medicine

  4

  0

  0

  4

  8

  Cardiology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Clin Pharm and Therap

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dermatology

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Nephrology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Respiratory Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Radiodiagnosis

  3

  1

  0

  0

  4

  Medical Oncology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Paediatric Surgery

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Medical Paediatrics

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Anaesthetics

  8

  2

  0

  0

  10

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  4

  2

  0

  0

  6

  Geriatric Medicine

  5

  0

  0

  1

  6

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Haematology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Pathology

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Clinical Chemistry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Microbiology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  54

  12

  0

  7

  73

  Woodilee Hospital

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  6

  0

  3

  0

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6

  0

  3

  0

  9

  Leverndale Hospital

  132

  133

  Location and specialty

  Whole time

  Maximum part time

  Part time

  Honorary

  Total all

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  6

  0

  1

  0

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6

  0

  1

  0

  7

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Philipshill Hospital

  General Medicine

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Royal Samaritan Hospital

  Neurology

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Victoria Infirmary

  General Surgery

  4

  2

  0

  0

  6

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  1

  4

  0

  0

  5

  ENT Surgery

  1

  3

  0

  0

  4

  Urology

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  General Medicine

  3

  2

  0

  0

  5

  Endocrin and Diabetes

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Dermatology

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Respiratory Medicine

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Radiodiagnosis

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Anaesthetics

  10

  2

  0

  0

  12

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Accident and Emergency

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Haematology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Pathology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Clinical Chemistry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Microbiology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  33

  17

  0

  0

  50

  Victoria Infirmary Geriatric Unit

  Geriatric Medicine

  3

  1

  0

  0

  4

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Haematology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  1

  0

  0

  6

  Rutherglen Maternity Hospital

  Medical Paediatrics

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Clinics: South West District

  Forensic Psychiatry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Southern General Hospital

  General Surgery

  2

  2

  0

  0

  4

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Ophtahlmology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Urology

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Neurosurgery

  4

  0

  0

  2

  6

  General Medicine

  5

  2

  0

  0

  7

  Cardiology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Neurology

  2

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Respiratory Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  STD

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Radiodiagnosis

  5

  1

  0

  1

  7

  Medical Paediatrics

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Anaesthetics

  11

  2

  2

  0

  15

  Obstetrics and Gynae

  3

  2

  0

  0

  5

  Geriatric Medicine

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  4

  1

  0

  2

  7

  Psychotherapy

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Forensic Psychiatry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  134

  135

  Location and specially

  Whole time

  Maximum part time

  Part time

  Honorary

  Total all

  Haematology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Pathology

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  Microbiology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  54

  11

  2

  8

  75

  Clinics; Western District

  Forensic Psychiatry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  General Surgery

  5

  1

  0

  0

  6

  E.N.T.

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Ophthalmology

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Radioadiagnosis

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Medical Oncology

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Geriatric Medicine

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Psychotherapy

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Child Psychiatry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Microbiology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  15

  3

  0

  2

  20

  Gartnavel Royal Hospital

  Geriatric Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Psychiatry-Mentally Ill

  4

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Psychotherapy

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6

  1

  0

  0

  7

  Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital

  Homeopathy

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Knightswood Hospital

  General Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Respiratory Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Geriatric Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  RHSC Drumchapel

  Medical Daediatrics

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Clinical Chemistry

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Dermatology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Radiodiagnosis

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Paediatric Surgery

  4

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Medical Paediatrics

  7

  0

  0

  3

  10

  Anaesthetics

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Child Psychiatry

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Psychiatry-Mentally Handicapped

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Haematology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Pathology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Clinical Genetics

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Microbiology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  31

  0

  0

  6

  37

  Queen Mother's Hospital

  Radiodiagnosis

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Medical Paediatrics

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  3

  2

  0

  0

  5

  Clinical Genetics

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  2

  0

  1

  8

  Glasgow Western Infirmary

  General Surgery

  1

  0

  0

  5

  6

  136

  137

  Location and specialty

  Whole time

  Maximum part time

  Part time

  Honorary

  Total all

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  3

  2

  0

  2

  7

  ENT Surgery

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Ophthalmology

  3

  1

  0

  3

  7

  Urology

  0

  2

  o

  0

  2

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Plastic Surgery

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  General Medicine

  6

  1

  0

  11

  18

  Cardiology

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Neurology

  2

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Dermatology

  1

  1

  0

  2

  4

  Nephrology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Rheumatology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Respiratory Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Radiodiagnosis

  3

  3

  0

  0

  6

  Radiotherapy

  6

  0

  0

  2

  8

  Medical Oncology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Medical Paediatrics

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Anaesthetics

  17

  1

  0

  1

  19

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Haematology

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Pathology

  2

  0

  0

  11

  13

  Clinical Chemistry

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Microbiology

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Immunology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Virology

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  58

  11

  1

  47

  117

  Beatson Oncology Centre

  Radiotherapy

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Glasgow Eye Infirmary

  Ophthalmology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  TOTAL

  397

  85

  8

  127

  617

  Note: The data collection system used to provide these data records the main location of each consultant. (S)he may work in different subsidiary locations. This table does not reflect the distribution of consultant sessions by subsidiary locations.

  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria have been employed by Greater Glasgow health board in the conduct of the review of accident and emergency services in the city of Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board is applying a wide range of criteria including the location of services, the different procedures followed at these locations, the staffing levels, and the usage. The review which is still in progress is intended to ensure that these services are delivered effectively.

  Southern general hospital
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many non-medical staff are employed at the Southern general hospital; and if he will give a breakdown by department or category; and if he will give comparable figures for the past three years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  'The non-medical staff whose main work location is the Southern general hospital are shown in the table.
  138

  Non-Medical staff located at the Southern general hospital Glasgow: at 30 September

  1985 Whole-time equivalent

  1986 Whole-time equivalent

  1987 Whole-time equivalent

  Nursing and Midwifery

  1,075·4

  1,045·5

  1,072·3

  Trainee Nurses

  208·0

  173·0

  165·0

  Scientific

  3·0

  4·0

  4·0

  Paramedical

  103·6

  104·2

  109·4

  Technical

  62·2

  59·6

  43·2

  Works

  5·0

  6·0

  6·0

  Administration and Clerical

  236·4

  231·2

  223·3

  Ancillary

  512·3

  493·8

  494·4

  Tradesmen

  78·0

  77·0

  75·0

  Pharmacists

  14·0

  15·0

  15·0

  TOTAL

  2,297·9

  2,209·3

  2,207·6

  Only learner nurses' time spent in giving service contribution to the hospital is included.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been treated at the Southern general accident and emergency unit in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  139

  Patients treated as accident and emergency at the Southern general hospital

  Year ending 31 March

  Inpatient discharges1

  Day cases

  Outpatient attendances

  1984

  706

  98

  40,378

  1985

  616

  105

  41,727

  1986

  658

  23

  41,313

  1987

  662

  99

  42,598

  1988

  760

  84

  42,639

  1 Including deaths and transfers out.

  Health Boards (Property Disposals)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether health boards have discretion to take into account factors other than the highest offer when deciding on disposal of heritable property.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Where surplus Health Service land is offered for sale, the sellers are not bound to accept the highest, or any, offer. All offers received are considered in their entirety, taking into account not only their monetary value but any conditions and any other relevant information. The decision on which offer is the best is made in the light of expert professional advice from the district valuer and the selling agent.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average gross domestic product per head in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The provisional estimate of Scottish gross domestic product at factor cost for 1987 is £5,725 per head of population.

  Average Wages
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average weekly wage for(a) full-time and (b) part-time (i) male and (ii) female workers in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is given in the table. It has been derived from the new earnings survey, which is conducted by the Department of Employment in April each year, and covers a 1 per cent. sample of employees who are members of PAYE schemes.

  Average gross weekly earnings of employees on adult rates1

  Scotland, April 1988

  £/week2

  Male full-time

  Male part-time

  Female full-time

  Female part-time

  233·3

  57·8

  152·2

  62·4

  1 Excluding those whose pay for the survey pay-period was affected by absence

  2 All figures are subject to sampling errors.

  Table 1B

  GDFCF in certain industries1 as a percentage of GDP in equivalent industries3

  GDFCF in certain industries1 and dwellings as a percentage of total GDP4 at factor cost

  Old basis

  New basis

  Old basis

  New basis

  1971

  20·1

  —

  14·7

  —

  1972

  19·3

  —

  13·7

  —

  1973

  19·4

  —

  14·0

  —

  1974

  22·8

  —

  16·9

  —

  1975

  26·6

  —

  17·8

  —

  1976

  25·0

  —

  17·2

  —

  1977

  23·6

  —

  16·0

  —

  1978

  24·4

  —

  16·1

  —

  1979

  24·1

  —

  16·1

  —

  1980

  26·5

  26·9

  16·1

  16·0

  Industry Act
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for the amount of special assistance granted under the Industry Act in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The figures are contained in the annual report of the "Industrial Development Act 1982". The most recent report for the year ended 31 March 1988 was presented to the House on 28 July 1988.

  Gross Domestic Fixed Capital
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the present levels of gross domestic fixed capital formation in Scotland; and what is the percentage change over(a) the last year and (b) 1978–79, in cash and real terms;

  (2) what is the gross domestic fixed capital formation in Scotland as a percentage of gross domestic product (E) for each year since 1959.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation (GDFCF) for Scotland, prepared by the Central Statistical Office, are available only for agriculture, forestry and fishing, energy and water supply, manufacturing, transport and communications (excluding shipping and air transport), together with dwellings. In 1986 these sectors accounted for 57 per cent. of United Kingdom GDFCF (excluding the continental shelf region).

  Changes between 1978 and 1986 and between 1985 and 1986, are set out in Table 1A. Owing to methodological and classification changes, there is slight discontinuity in the series in 1980.

  Table 1B gives GDFCF in Scotland for those industries for which it is available as a percentage of Scottish gross domestic product (GDP) at factor cost for a broadly equivalent group of industries. In addition, alternative estimates including investment in dwellings are given as a percentage of total GDP. The GDP estimates are based on income GDP(I) at factor cost; there are no expenditure-based estimates (GDP(E)) for Scotland.

  Table 1A

  GDFCF in certain industries1 and dwellings

  1978–1986 percentage change

  1985–1986 percentage change

  Current prices

  +49

  -1

  Consant 1985 Prices2

  -22

  -6

  141

  GDFCF in certain industries1 as a percentage of GDP in equivalent industries3

  GDFCF in certain industries1 and dwellings as a percentage of total GDP4 at factor cost

  Old basis

  New basis

  Old basis

  New basis

  1981

  —

  23·3

  —

  14·1

  1982

  —

  20·6

  —

  13·0

  1983

  —

  18·9

  —

  12·0

  1984

  —

  20·2

  —

  12·6

  1985

  —

  20·9

  —

  12·6

  1986

  —

  18·3

  —

  11·4

  1 Agriculture, forestry and fishing; energy and water supply; manufacturing; transport and communication (excluding shipping and air transport)

  2 Using United Kingdom deflators for the relevant sectors and dwellings—such deflators are likely to be particularly unreliable for dwellings.

  3 GDP(l) for the industries listed at footnote 1 and also including shipping and air transport. The difference in the basis of comparison leads to a likely slight understatement of the GDFCF share of about 0·3 percentage points.

  4 GDP for the whole economy, including industries for which no GDFCF estimates are available.

  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total Health Service expenditure per head of population in Scotland for each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total gross expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland per head of population in 1986–87 was £418 and in 1987–88 £457. The corresponding figure for 1988–89 is expected to be £504.

  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 13 December we plan to spend some £2,683 million on the National Health Service in Scotland next year. This will result in an increase in real terms of about 32 per cent. over the level of expenditure in 1979–80. These figures clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to the continued development and improvement of health services in Scotland.

  National Health Service Beds
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of staffed National Health Service beds in Scotland per 1,000 people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  10·7.

  Colleges of Education (Staff)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teaching staff vacancies in Scottish colleges of education have been filled by permanent appointment in the academic session 1987–88 and in session 1988–89 to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of teaching staff vacancies in the colleges filled by temporary secondments is as follows:

  (a) from primary schools

  (b) from secondary schools

  Academic session 1987–88

  12

  14

  Academic session 1988–89 (to date)

  13

  15

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teaching staff vacancies in Scottish colleges of education have been filled by temporary secondments from(a) primary, and (b) secondary schools in the academic session 1987–88 and in session 1988–89 to date.
  142
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Among teaching staff for teacher training courses, nine vacancies in session 1987–88 and so far 13 vacancies in session 1988–89 have been filled by permanent appointment.

  Home Condition Survey
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to order a house condition survey in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have, as yet, nothing further to add to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 2 November 1987, column 431, and again on 13 May 1988 at column 279 and the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 8 March 1988 at column 85.

  Housing Repairs
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest information regarding housing in need of major structural repairs in(a) Scotland, (b) Greater Glasgow, (c) Edinburgh, (d) Dundee and (e) Aberdeen.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Skye (Road Bridge)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer of 25 January to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, he will indicate(a) the likely time-scale involved in considering the range of options and the financial implications currently before him in respect of the possibility of building a bridge to Skye and (b) whether he proposes any public consultation over the use and level of tolls associated with such a project; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible at this stage to indicate any precise time scale for the consideration of options or what procedures will be involved.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners there are in Scotland; and what proportion this is of the total population.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The registrar general's population estimates for 30 June 1987 give the total number of women over 60 and men over 65 as 893,629 which is 17·5 per cent. of the population of Scotland on that date.

  Pensioners (New Towns)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners, expressed as a percentage of the total population, are resident in each of the new towns; and what is the projected figure for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]I regret that the information requested is not available.

  The registrar general prepares population estimates and projections by age for local government districts but only estimates of total population for new towns. The most recent census information relates to 1981. There are likely to have been significant changes in the new towns since then.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Gynaecology Patients)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the hospital treatment waiting lists for gynaecology patients.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]The gynaecology in-patient waiting list is estimated to have failed by 10 per cent. in the year to March 1988. Of the £3 million which I have allocated to health boards to reduce waiting lists in 1988–89, a total of £218,000 has been allocated to projects to reduce gynaecology waiting lists. Boards have set targets to see or treat 3,510 extra out-patients, 614 extra in-patients and 690 extra day cases in this specialty. The £7 million which has been allocated for action to reduce waiting lists in 1989–90 will further improve the situation substantially.

  Radioactivity Monitoring
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now consider funding and authorising the Clyde River Purification Board to undertake direct radioactivity monitoring in the river areas for which they have responsibility.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]We have no plans for this. But if the hon. Member has a particular objective in mind which such monitoring might achieve he may like to let me know.

TRANSPORT

  Parking Facilities (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having with the Metropolitan police and borough councils to improve parking facilities in Greater London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have advised London boroughs to develop coherent policies on parking, waiting and loading as part of their approach to traffic management.

  In his statement on transport in London issued last week to all London borough councils and to the Metropolitan police, my right hon. Friend noted his support for more effective parking controls; the need for users of off-street public car parks to pay the full commercial price; his support to local authorities' policies of limiting private non-residential off-street parking in new
  144
  developments; and the contribution of park-and-ride facilities in outer areas to relieve congestion on radial routes.

  Officials are in regular contact with the Metropolitan police and London borough councils on a wide range of parking topics.

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school-age children of his Department's employees; what child care provision, for school holiday or after-school care, is provided for employees' children aged five years and over; and what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The driver and behicle licensing centre at Swansea runs an annual summer holiday play scheme for children of school age which is being extended to the Easter holidays this year for the first time.

  Child care for 5 to 12-year-olds is again being provided for two weeks in August at the Cardington residential training centre.

  The Department is considering what scope there is for further provision without continuing subsidy.

  King's Cross (Traffic and Roads)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has commissioned into traffic and roads in the King's Cross area; when they are due to he completed; and who are carrying them out.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The east London assessment study area has been extended to include King's Cross. Ove Arup and Partners have been asked to consider the impact on transport of proposed developments in the King's Cross area as part of their commission.

  The consultants' report on the assessment study is expected this summer. They will provide advice as necessary on issues arising from development proposals in the meantime.

  Road Transport
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will be seeking in the context of the single European market to bring road transport cabotage into line with continental countries, whether heavy goods vehicles will be forbidden to travel on Sundays and restricted to specific roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 12 January at column 122 about the need for compliance by all vehicles with Community law and the national laws of the countries they visit. It is for highway authorities to decide whether to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles on the roads for which they are responsible.

  Harbour Authorities (Shipping Services)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many competent harbour authorities are charging firms which maintain scheduled services between United Kingdom offshore islands and the United Kindom mainland, under the Pilotage Act; and if he will list them.
  145
  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that the following competent harbour authorities make charges under the Pilotage Act 1987 to firms operating such services:

  Aberdeen Harbour Board

  Clyde Port Authority

  Cowes Harbour Commissioners

  Lerwick Harbour Trust

  Penwith District Council

  City of Portsmouth

  I further understand that Associated British Ports, as competent harbour authority for the port of Southampton, intends shortly to introduce such charges on firms operating services of this kind.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints about charges on scheduled United Kingdom territorial ferry services he has received; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has received complaints from my hon. Friend about charges made under the Pilotage Act 1987 by the city of Portsmouth to Solent Cruises and Wight Line Cruises and by the Cowes harbour commissioners to the Red Funnel Group; and from another hon. Member about such charges made by the city of Portsmouth to Gosport Ferry Limited. I understand that following discussions between the city of Portsmouth and Solent and Wight Line Cruises an acceptable arrangement has been reached in those cases.

  My right hon. Friend has received no objection under section 10 of the Pilotage Act 1987 about charges made on ferry services operating entirely within United Kingdom territorial waters or between the mainland and United Kingdom offshore islands.

  Ministerial Advisers (Salaries)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total expenditure on salaries of ministerial advisers in his Department for each completed year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have nothing to add to the information which I gave to the hon. Member in my reply of 16 January at column 98.

  Personal Injury Accidents
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Pembroke on 24 January,Official Report, column 513–14, he will express the personal injury accidents given in the reply as a percentage of (a) resident population in the police area, (b) per mile of road in the police area and (c) per registered motor vehicle in the police area.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Population, road length and vehicle stock figures are not readily available by police force area. Figures are available for counties. I will write to my hon. Friend when the official road accident statistics for 1988 are available.

  BAA Airports (Security)
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet received from Sir Norman Payne the report on improvements in security at BAA airports that he requested on 13 January.
  146
  Mr. Channon
  Yes, I received Sir Norman Payne's report on Thursday 19 January.

  The report is thorough and detailed. It identifies well over 100 points on which security improvements have recently been made at BAA's seven airports, are now being made, or are under urgent review.

  These improvements cover the following areas in particular:

  (a) conditions for the issue of airside passes;

  (b) the searching of staff and of any articles they carry when entering airside;

  (c) the searching of vehicles when entering airside.

  (d) reducing existing landside/airside control posts to release staff for improving security elsewhere; and

  (e) increasing patrolling of restricted areas.

  In identifying these improvements BAA have been guided by the following principles:

  (i) All staff in possession of unescorted airside passes must have been satisfactorily checked to ensure their integrity. Subsequent to the issue of their passes appropriate positive monitoring must be implemented on an ongoing basis.

  (ii) Procedures must be in operation which satisfactorily monitor the articles carried airside by staff.

  (iii) Procedures must be in operation which either ensure that goods on delivery are escorted to the offload point or minimise the risk of prohibited goods entering airside.

  (iv) Better security is achieved by the minimum number of airside/landside control points.

  (v) Monitoring of restricted areas by patrolling must be at a level consistent with the risks.

  I do not propose to have BAA's report as a whole published. It would not be in the interests of good security to release detailed material on airport security measures in force or under consideration.

  I have replied to Sir Norman Payne accepting his report. My officials will keep in touch with BAA about its implementation. I have asked Sir Norman for an account of progress on outstanding matters in three months.

  Invalid Carriages
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when regulations allowing for a new class of invalid carriage that can travel at 8 mph will be introduced.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/2268) came into force yesterday. These regulations allow for the introduction of the type of vehicle my hon. Friend describes, that is, an "invalid carriage" (powered outdoor vehicle for a disabled person) able to travel at a speed of up to 8 mph on the carriageway with the restriction remaining at 4 mph on the footway.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individuals and organisations that have registered their objections to the proposed increase in tolls on the Severn bridge and which intend to give evidence at the inquiry which starts on 21 February.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At the pre-inquiry meeting held in Thornbury on 17 January, the following signified their intention of giving evidence at the inquiry:

  The Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales

  Avon County Council

  The Automobile Association

  The Royal Automobile Club

  The Freight Transport Association

  147

  The Road Haulage Association

  Mr. John Jackson of the Railway Development Society Severnside

  Mr. Steve Hoselitz, Editor of the South Wales Argus

  All registered objectors have been asked to say by 7 February whether they wish to give evidence.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what interest charges were incurred in the building of the Severn bridge;

  (2) what was the basic cost of building the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: The total cost of building the Severn crossing, comprising the Severn bridge, the Wye bridge and viaduct, and the approach roads, with all ancillary equipment, was £14,362,334. This includes £1,710,143 in respect of interest capitalised during construction.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of the current repair work on the Severn bridge at the latest available date; and what is the total amount expected to be on completion.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 30 January 1989] To date £38·9 million has been spent on strengthening and repair work to the Severn crossing. The current estimate for the whole of the works including maintenance is £70 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  Israel (Prime Minister)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to seek to meet the Prime Minister of Israel.

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

  Social Reform (EEC Proposals)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister is she will make a statement on her policy on the EEC's proposals on social reform, with particular reference to the draft directives on sex discrimination, parental leave and the
  rights of part-time employees.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government support the conclusion of the European Council that the single market offers the best prospect for promoting employment and increasing the general prosperity of the Community for the benefit of all our people, women and men. We therefore encourage those measures that help the achievement of the single market, and bring down unemployment. But we must resist unnecessary directives which would be an obstacle to growth. We believe that such matters as parental leave and terms and conditions for part-time workers are best dealt with not by inflexible directives but by negotiation between employers and employees.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters she has received objecting to the proposed high-speed rail link from London to the Channel tunnel; and what replies she has sent.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received several hundred letters, including some from hon. Members.

  Ministerial Advisers (Salaries)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure on salaries on ministerial advisers in her office for each completed year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Following is the information:

  Year

  £

  1981

  35,762·50

  1982

  75,569·25

  11983

  167,126·97

  1984

  145,022·52

  1985

  188,654·82

  1986

  210,746·87

  1987

  239,459·46

  1988

  215,379·85

  1 In 1983 the CPRS was abolished and some members became Ministerial advisers.

  Engagements
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether she will publish tables listing all the arts: ( a) companies, (b) projects and (c) events that she has visited or attended in her official capacity in each of the past 10 years;
  (2) whether she will publish a table showing the total number of official engagements she has undertaken in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years.

  The Prime Minister
  I undertake a substantial number of official engagements each year and visit a wide variety of organisations.

  Press Statements
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether she will publish tables listing all the(a) dates and (b) titles of all press releases on the arts that her office has released in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) whether she will publish a table showing the total number of press statements released by her office in each of the past 10 years.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Speeches
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether she will list the(a) dates, (b) locations and (c) titles of all tlhe speeches she has made on the arts in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) whether she will publish a table showing the total number of speeches she has delivered in her official capacity in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to each Government Department which carries its own risks and has its own insurance
  149
  arrangements in each year since 1974 of paying damages and associated administrative costs; and what estimate she has as to the cost for each Department in each year of subscribing to normal third party cover afforded by insurance companies in respect of (a) employees, (b) properties and (c) vehicles.

  The Prime Minister
  I regret that this information cannot be provided without a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  Non-ministerial Appointments (Salaries)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those non-ministerial appointments for which she is responsible, to which a salary is attached.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Engagements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Overseas Aid1: Plans and outturn 1984–85 to 1987–88

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Originally planned provision

  1,125

  1,157

  1,1214

  1,263

  Estimated Outturn

  1,124

  1,160

  1,224

  1,277

  Final Outturn

  1,120

  1,151

  1,209

  1,224

  1 Overseas aid includes aid administration and amounts attributed to overseas aid for European Community budgetary spending on aid.

DEFENCE

  Emergency Response Team
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual budget for the counter improvised

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new steps he proposes in overseas aid to seek to prevent future large-scale deforestation in areas of tropical rain forest.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall continue to encourage the wise and sustainable use of forest resources including support for alternative activities which deter deforestation. Countries receiving British aid will be asked to devote more of our aid resources to forestry.

  We will make more aid funds available for international collaborative forestry research. We will encourage British charities to put forward more forestry projects for support from the aid programme. We will continue to help strengthen the institutional capacity of developing countries to deal with forestry issues by, for example, funding overseas trainees on forestry courses in the United Kingdom.

  We shall continue to collaborate with other donors in the tropical forestry action plan which is now active in more than 50 countries. We remain strong supporters of the International Tropical Timber Organisation.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing for each of the last complete financial years(a) the public expenditure planned on overseas development administration in the public expenditure White Paper published immediately prior to each financial year and (b) the outturn public expenditure for each year, including any mid-year additions to the overseas aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The table, derived from relevant public expenditure White Papers, shows for each of the last four financial years the originally planned provision, estimated outturn (including adjustments to planned provision announced during the year) and final outturn for overseas aid. Since 1984–85, with Treasury agreement, aid programme underspends have been added to provision for the next year rather than, as previously, the year after next. An increase in the planned provision for overseas aid in 1988–89, taking account of the underspend in 1987–88, was announced on 14 November 1988, at column 371.

  nuclear device emergency response team; what liaison it has with the nuclear emergency search team in the United States of America; and with which other national counter-nuclear terrorist squads the United Kingdom team liaises.
  151
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir Michael McNair-Wilson) on 13 January at column 784.

  North Korea (Weapons Capacity)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the possession by North Korea of chemical or biological weapons capacity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our normal practice to comment in detail on the information available to the Government on such matters.

  Nuclear Materials (Storage)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific licensing arrangements exist with the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution covering the storage of nuclear materials at(a) Devonport, Rosyth and Faslane shipyards and (b) the Atomic Weapons Research establishment Aldermaston, Atomic Weapon Research Establishment Burghfield and the Royal Ordnance plant at Caerwent.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since their privatisation, the Devonport and Rosyth Dockyard Companies' nuclear facilities have been licensed, via the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, under the terms of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (NIA). The disposals of waste radioactive substances from these facilities are now made under authorisations issued, under the terms of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (RSA), by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in the Department of the Environment (HMIP/DOE) for Devonport and by Her Majesty's Industrial pollution inspectorate of the Scottish Development Department (HMIPI/SDD) for Rosyth.

  Crown and Government Departments including Her Majesty's forces nuclear and radioactive facilities are not subject to licensing under the NIA. These MOD facilities are, however, subject to appropriate regulation, inspection and enforcement by Her Majesty's inspectors of HSE (HMI/HSE) under the terms of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA). Although the terms of the RSA are not applicable to such facilities, disposals of waste radioactive substances are subject to "agreements",made with the relevant environmental Departments, approved by the Secretaries of State for those relevant Departments.

  Although safety enactments and statutes are not applicable to defence facilities, it is Her Majesty's Government policy that the standards of the health and safety requirements set by Secretary of State for Defence are, and shall be, at least as stringent as those set by enactments and other legislation for similar civil (non-defence) installations.

  The following are the current positions:

  (a) The Naval Base at Faslane is not licensed under the NIA. Waste disposals are under an agreement with HMIPI/SDD.

  (b) None of the Stations of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) based on Aldermaston, Burghfield and Cardiff (the former ROF Cardiff) is licensed under the NIA. Radioactive waste disposals are made in accordance with Agreements with the relevant Environmental Departments; viz: HMIP/DOE and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for AWE (Aldermaston); HMIP/DOE for AWE (Burghfield); and the Welsh Office, in consultation with HMIP/DOE, for AWE (Cardiff).

  Anti-submarine Atomic Depth Charges
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Admiralty research establishment at Portsmouth conducts any development or defence preparedness research on anti-submarine atomic depth charges.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our policy to disclose details of any research work of this nature.

  Radioactive Contamination
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of(a) beryllium and (b) depleted uranium are stored at the Royal Ordnance factory Caerweni at Llanishen, Cardiff; and what safety measures are implemented to stop radioactive contamination of surrounding land areas and water supplies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not the policy of the Ministry of Defence to reveal the amounts of nuclear, radioactive and other associated materials held at defence establishments including the atomic weapons establishment at Cardif (AWE (Cardiff)) (formerly the Royal Ordnance factory, Cardiff).

  All work involving radioactive and toxic materials is undertaken in facilities which are designed and built to ensure a safe working environment and to protect other workers, the general public and the environment against any potential hazard. Residual radioactive and beryllium wastes are treated before discharge. The airborne discharges are continuously monitored; liquids are collected and each batch monitored prior to discharge. The total amounts discharged are very small. Monitoring outside the buildings involved does not indicate any significant level of dispersed materials. The radiation doses from these discharges are assessed to be negligible, less than one thousandth of the annual United Kingdom dose limit for members of the public.

  We are therefore confident that the storage of quantities of both beryllium and depleted uraniaum held at AWE (Cardiff) does not pose any danger to the work force or the public.

  Fissile Material Stockpile
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has recently received any reports from(a) the director of atomic weapon research establishment, Aldermaston and (b) the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces on the preparedness of the United Kingdom fissile material stockpile to meet defence requirements into the 1990s.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Future requirements for fissile material are kept under regular review as part of the overall process of planning the defence programme. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details.

  Chemical Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any report on the chemical weapons capability of(a) Libya, (b) Israel, (c) Iraq, (d) the Soviet Union, (e) France, (f) South Africa and (g) the United States of America.
  153
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Reports are received from time to time on the military capabilities of many countries. However, it is not our normal practice to comment in detail on individual reports.

  Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what places, over what time period and using what methods United Kingdom stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents were destroyed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 25 January at column 653.

  Fighter Pilots
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pilots qualified for flying jet fighter planes during 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  A total of 83 pilots graduated to fly fast jet in 1988, which represents a slight increase on 1987 figures.

  Chemical Warfare
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any stocks of chemical or biological warfare agents are kept at Porton Down or other Ministry of Defence research establishments for the purpose of experimental research on protective measures for civilians and military personnel against chemical warfare attack.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 25 January at column 653.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any tests have been undertaken at Porton Down on any soil samples from the Kurdish areas of Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The CDE Porton Down has carried out a scientific analysis of soil samples provided by Mr. Gwynne Roberts, a Channel 4 reporter. The analysis, which was given to Mr. Roberts on 11 January, shows that the samples contained traces of sulphur mustard and related compounds together with traces of the explosive Tetryl. We cannot confirm the circumstances in which these samples were collected, but have no reason to doubt Mr. Roberts' account that these were collected in northern Iraq. The Government believe that this, following previous indications, amounts to convincing evidence that chemical weapons have been used by Iraq against their Kurdish population.

  Military Construction Projects
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list military construction projects in the United Kingdom that are used in support of(a) British forces and (b) United States forces that are to be funded in whole or in part by NATO infrastructure funds from NATO slices 41 and 42.

  Mr. Neubert
  The composition of NATO infrastructure slices 41 and 42 will not be agreed until December 1989 and December 1990 respectively.

  Military Exercises (Noise and Damage)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken since 1986 to lessen the effects of the firing of guns on the Castlemartin range, Pembrokeshire on the range's neighbour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  A number of measures have been adopted in an effort to reduce the effects of firing at Castlemartin range on the local community. When weather conditions are likely to attenuate firing, noise limitations are placed on the types of ammunition which may be fired and firing on certain areas of the range is prohibited. Night firing is restricted to two hours only between 1830 hours and 2359 hours according to the season and may take place on only two non-consecutive nights per week and not on Fridays, weekends or public holidays; only the quieter ammunition may be fired.

  Castlemartin is an extremely important training facility for tank units of the British and Federal German armies. Live firing is an indispensible part of troop training and Castlemartin is one of the few places where this can be done.

  Nevertheless, the range authorities maintain close liaison with the local community and seek to do all that is possible, given training needs, to lessen the burden on those living close to the range.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any compensation is paid by his Department in respect of damage caused to civilian properties as a result of vibration from British or West German military guns or aircraft in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence deals with, and, where appropriate, settles, third party claims for compensation for loss of or damage to property in this country arising from the on-duty activities of the United Kingdom's armed forces. The Ministry also deals, under the terms of article VIII of the NATO status of forces agreement (Cmnd. 9363), with claims arising from on-duty activities of the armed forces of other NATO member nations training in this country.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the types of British and West German tank together with their gun calibre used on the Castlemartin range, Pembrokeshire, since 1959, with the dates when new types of tank were introduced.

  Mr. Neubert
  The following types of tank have been used on the Castlemartin range since 1959.

  British

  Date

  Centurion

  20 pounder gun

  1959–64

  Centurion

  105 mm gun

  1965–72

  Centurion

  120 mm gun

  1970–date

  Note Some minor trials were conducted with Chieftain 120 mm during 1966–67.

  German

  Date

  M48

  90 mm gun

  1961–67

  Leopard 1

  105 mm gun

  1968–69

  M48

  90 mm gun

  1970–73

  Leopard 1

  105 mm gun

  1974–75

  M48

  90 mm gun

  1976–79

  155

  German

  Date

  Leopard 1

  105 mm gun

  1980–85

  Leopard 2

  120 mm gun

  1986–date

  Note The Federal Republic of Germany first made use of the facilities at Castlemartin in 1961.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any arrangements exist for the provision of finance or other assistance for sound insulation of civilian properties adjacent to military ranges in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence has no arrangements for the provision of finance or other assistance for the sound insulation of civilian properties adjacent to military ranges in the United Kingdom. As with all military activities, however, where a reasonable connection can be made between an activity and specific damage or loss, the Ministry of Defence would be prepared to consider individual claims.

ENERGY

  Ministerial Advisers (Salaries)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total expenditure on salaries of ministerial advisers in his Department for each completed year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The ministerial advisers appointed in my Department since 1979 are as follows:

  1979 Mr. M. Portillo

  1983 Ms. L. Rouse

  1987 Mr. J. Derrick

  1989 Mr. N. D. Martin

  It is not the practice to reveal the salaries of advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential. The length of appointment for each adviser varied.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for how long the Didcot Pluto reactors at Harwell have been in use; if any United Kingdom reactor has been in use longer; what(a) primary containment or (b) secondary shutdown system exists in these reactors; what assessment he has made of the safety of these reactors and of the possibility of a melt-down accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The UKAEA's reactors Dido and Pluto were commissioned in 1956 and 1957 respectively, contemporary with the first United Kingdom commercial power reactors. On the matters raised by the hon. Member relating to the design of the reactors, I have asked the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to write to him.

  The Health and Safety Executive carried out a safety audit of Dido and Pluto in late 1987. This audit considered all aspects of the safety of the reactors and concluded that the two reactors were safe for current operation, but the HSE made a number of recommendations with which the authority would have to comply to provide justification for operation beyond 1989. The AEA have accepted all the recommendations, the timely implementation of which the HSE will continue to monitor closely.
  156
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make available to the public the full report of inspections carried out by the nuclear installations inspectorate towards the end of 1987 on the Didcot Pluto reactors at Harwell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The technical commentaries on plant operation and arrangements which the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate produced in the course of its review were not prepared with a view to future publication. They include information of a commercially sensitive nature which it would not be appropriate to publish. The conclusions and recommendations arising from the audit were published by the HSE in a press notice dated 21 June 1988 a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.

  Offshore Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made regarding proposals for the application off shore of regulations dealing with safety representatives and safety committees.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A consultative document containing our proposals for a set of regulations to deal with the election of safety representatives and for the formation of safety committees on offshore installations has been issued today. Copies of these proposals are available in the Libraries of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Private Bill Procedure
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received other than from hon. and right hon. Members urging an early debate of the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill' Procedure.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have received no such representations.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the private bills laid before the House since 1979 and indicate which have been enacted.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Bills presented after 27 November 1979

  Alexandra Park and Palace [Lords]

  *Bangor Market [Lords]

  *British Olivetti Limited [Lords]

  *British Railways

  *British Railways (Castlefield)

  *British Transport Docks

  *Clifton Suspension Bridge

  *County of Kent [Lords]

  *Derbyshire [Lords]

  *Eagle & Globe Steel Limited [Lords]

  *Eastbourne Harbour [Lords]

  *East Sussex [Lords]

  *Edward Berry and Doris Eilleen Ward (Marriage
  Enabling) [Lords]

  *Falmouth Container Terminal

  *Felixstowe Dock and Railway (No. 2) (Late Bill)

  *Friends Meeting House (Reigate) [Lords]

  *Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2)

  *Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2)

  *Humberside [Lords]

  *London Transport (No. 2)

  Portsmouth City Council

  157

  *Salvation Army [Lords]

  *Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society

  *Southern Water Authority [Lords]

  *Standard Life Assurance Company

  Stevenage Development Authority

  *United Reformed Church Lion Walk Colchester (changed from United Reformed Church (Lion Walk Colchester))

  *Wesley's Chapel, City Road

  Bills presented after 27 November 1980

  *Allied Irish Banks

  *Barnsley Borough Council

  *British Railways (No. 2)

  *British Railways (Pension Schemes)

  *British Railways (Victoria) [Lords]

  *British Transport Docks

  *Charterhouse Japhet

  *County of Avon [Lords]

  *Cumbria [Lords]

  *Greater London Council (General Powers)

  *Greater London Council (Money)

  *Great Yarmouth Borough Council [Lords]

  *Lloyd's

  *Lloyd's Bank

  *London Transport

  *Milford Docks [Lords]

  *Northumbrian Water Authority

  *Peterborough Development Corporation [Lords]

  *Preston Borough Council [Lords]

  *Sion College [Lords]

  *South Yorkshire (Late Bill)

  *United Reformed Church [Lords]

  United Reformed Church (Slough) [Lords]

  *Wallerawang Collieries, Limited [Lords]

  *Whitehaven Harbour

  Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Pier

  Bills presented after 27 November 1981

  Alexandra Park and Palace

  *British Railways

  *British Railways (Liverpool Street Station)

  *British Transport Docks

  *British Waterways [Lords]

  *Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited (Merger) [Lords] (Late Bill)

  *Cornwall County Council [Lords]

  *County of Lancashire [Lords]

  *Derwent Valley Railway [Lords]

  *East Lindsey District Council [Lords]

  *Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation [Lords]

  *Feltham Station Area Redevelopment (Longford River)

  *Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2)

  *Grater London Council (Money)

  *Hampshire [Lords]

  *Hertsmere Borough Council (Rowley Lane)

  *Hong Kong and China Gas Company plc Bill [Lords]

  (changed from Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited Bill [Lords]

  *Hugh Small and Norma Small (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  *John Francis Dare and Gillian Loder Dare (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  *London Transport (General Powers)

  *London Transport (Liverpool Street) Norwich City Council [Lords]

  *Nottingham County Council [Lords]

  *Port of London

  *Saint Thomas' Burial Ground (Southwark)

  *Severn-Trent Water Authority

  *Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council [Lords]

  *Southern Water Authority Swindford Bridge [Lords]

  *Tees and Harlepool Port Authority

  *Thomas Brown and Sons, Limited [Lords]

  *West Yorkshire (Parking and Transport)

  Bills presented after 27 November 1982

  *Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust

  158

  *British Railways

  *Commons Registration (Glamorgan)

  *Dartford Tunnel [Lords]

  Ginns and Gutteridge, Leicester (Crematorium)

  Greater London Council (General Powers)

  *Greater London Council (Money)

  *King's College London [Lords]

  *Kingston upon Hull [Lords]

  *Lloyds Bowmaker [Lords]

  *London Docklands Railway

  *Milford Haven Conservancy

  *Parkeston Quay [Lords]

  *Pwllheli Harbour [Lords]

  *Staffordshire [Lords]

  *Standard Chartered Merchant Bank (late Bill)

  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority

  *Tor Bay Harbour (Torquay Marina &c.) changedfrom Tor Bay Harbour (Torquay Marina etc.)

  Bills presented after 27 November 1983

  *Alexandra Park and Palace

  *Anglian Water Authority (King's Lynn Tidal Defences)

  *Associated British Ports (No. 2)

  *Aylesbury Vale District Council [Lords]

  *Barclays Bank

  *Bournemouth Borough Council [Lords]

  *British Railways (No. 2)

  *Cardiff City Council

  *Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School
  [Lords]

  *Dartmoor Commons

  *Derwent Valley Railway [Lords]

  *Greater London Council (General Powers)

  *Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2)

  *Hereford City Council [Lords]

  *Leicestershire [Lords]

  *London Docklands Railway (No. 2)

  *London Transport

  *London Transport (Tower Hill) [Lords]

  *Merseyside Development Corporation

  *Metals Society [Lords]

  *Norwich City Council [Lords]

  *Oxfordshire [Lords]

  Piece Hall, Halifax

  Piece Hall, Halifax (No. 2) (late Bill)

  *Portsea Harbour Company

  *Selby Bridge

  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [Lords]

  *Standard Chartered Bank

  *Surrey [Lords]

  *Swavesey Bye-Ways [Lords]

  *Warwick District Council [Lords]

  *Worcester City Council [Lords]

  Bills presented after 27 November 1984

  *Associated British Ports (Hull Fish Docks) [Lords]

  *Bath City Council [Lords]

  *Berkshire [Lords]

  *Birmingham City Council

  *British Railways

  *British Railways (Trowse Bridge) [Lords]

  *Cambridge City Council

  *Clwyd County Council [Lords]

  *C-Poultry Company Limited

  *Durham City Council [Lords]

  *Essex [Lords]

  *Felixstowe Dock and Railway

  *Gosport Borough Council

  *Greater London Council (General Powers)

  *Greater London Council (Money)

  *Greater Manchester [Lords]

  *Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) [Lords]

  *Harrogate Stray

  *Hastings Pier

  King's College London [Lords]

  *Lincoln City Council

  *Lloyds Bank (Merger)

  *Luton Borough Council [Lords]

  159

  *National Bank of New Zealand Limited

  *Nottinghamshire County Council (Superannuation) [Lords]

  *Plymouth Marine Events Base

  *Poole Borough Council [Lords]

  *Royal Bank of Scotland

  *Royal Holloway and Bedford New College [Lords]

  *Scarborough Borough Council

  *South Yorkshire Passenger Transport

  *Streatham Park Cemetery

  *Swansea City Council (Tawe Barrage) [Lords]

  *Valerie Mary Hill and Alan Monk (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  *West Glamorgan [Lords]

  *Yorkshire Water Authority

  Bills presented after 27 November 1985

  *Aberystwyth Harbour

  *Alcoholics Anonymous (Dispositions) [Lords]

  Bexley London Borough Council

  Blyth Harbour [Lords]

  *Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry [Lords]

  *Brighton Marine Palace and Pier [Lords]

  *British Railways (No.2)

  *British Railways (Stansted)

  *Bromborough Dock [Lords]

  *City of London (Various Powers)

  *Clifton Suspension Bridge [Lords] [Late Bill]

  *County of Cleveland [Lords]

  *County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing)

  *Dyfed [Lords]

  *Exeter City Council [Lords]

  *Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour

  *Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) [Lords]

  *Gull Island Protection [Lords]

  *Harrogate Borough Council [Lords] (changed from Harrogate Bogs Field etc. [Lords])

  *Harwich Parkeston Quay

  *Ipswich Port Authority

  *Isle of Wight

  Lloyds Bank (Merger) (Amendent)

  *London Docklands Railway (City Extension)

  *London Underground (Goodge Street) [Lords]

  *Mersey Docks and Harbour [Lords]

  *Mid Glamorgan County Council [Lords]

  *Milford Haven Port Authority

  *Plymouth City Council [Lords]

  *Pontypridd Markets Fairs and Town Hall

  *Port of Fosdyke [Lords]

  *River Humber (Burcom Outfall) [Lords]

  Shoreham Port Authorityt

  *South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit

  Teignmouth Quay Company

  York City Council [Lords]

  Bills presented after 27 November 1986

  *Associated British Ports

  *Bexley London Borough Council

  *Brighton Marine Palace and Pier (Finance, &c.)

  *British Railways

  *British Railways (London) [Lords]

  *British Waterways

  *City of Westminster

  *Corn Exchange [Lords]

  *George Donald Evans and Deborah Jane Evans (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) [Lords]

  *Hastings Borough Council

  *John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe (Marriage Enabling) [Lords]

  *Keble College Oxford [Lords]

  *Liverpool Exchange [Lords]

  London Docklands Railway (Beckton)

  London Regional Transport

  London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) [Lords]

  *Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys

  *National Provident Institution [Lords]

  *Newcastle upon Tyne Town Moor [Lords]

  160

  *Selwyn College Cambridge [Lords]

  Swanage Yacht Haven [Lords]

  Teignmouth Quay Company

  *University College London [Lords]

  *Whitchurch Bridge

  Bills presented after 27 November 1987

  *Associated British Ports (Barrow) [Lords]

  Associated British Ports (No. 2)

  Avon Light Rail Transit [Lords]

  *Birmingham City Council

  *Brighton and Preston Cemetery

  British Railways (No. 2)

  British Railways (Penalty Fares) [Lords]

  *British Waterways (No. 2) [Lords]

  Cardiff Bay Barrage

  City of London (Spitalfields Market)

  *Dartmouth-Kingswear Floating Bridge

  *Eastbourne Harbour [Lords]

  Falmouh Container Terminal

  Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit Systern) (No. 3) [Lords]

  Hampstead Radio Station [Lords]

  *Harwich Harbour [Lords]

  *Imperial College [Lords]

  International Management Centre from Buckingham

  London Local Authorities [Lords]

  London Regional Transport (No. 2)

  *Northampton [Lords]

  North Killingholme Cargo Terminal

  Port of Tyne [Lords]

  River Humber (Burcom Outfall) [Lords]

  *Saint Bennet Fink Burial Ground (City of London) [Lords]

  St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate

  *Southern Water Authority

  *Tor Bay Harbour (Oxen Cove and Coastal Footpath, Brixham)

  *University of Wales, College of Cardiff [Lords] (Changed from University of Wales, Cardiff [Lords])

  Bills presented after 27 November 1988

  Associated British Ports (Hull)

  Birmingham City Council (No. 2)

  British Film Institute Southbank

  British Railways

  Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace)

  City of London (Various Powers)

  Hythe, Kent, Marina

  Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen

  International Westminster Bank

  Isle of Wight

  King's Cross Railways

  London Underground (Victoria)

  Midland Metro

  New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited

  Penzance Albert Pier Extension

  Redbridge London Borough Council

  Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport

  Wentworth Estate

  Wesleyan Assurance Society

  Note: Bills which have been enacted are indicated by '*'.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the standards of primary and secondary schools in rural areas.

  Mr. Butcher
  Responsibility for educational provision in maintained primary and secondary schools in rural as well as in other areas rests with local education authorities. My right hon. Friend is supporting through education support grant some £1·5 million of expenditure per annum
  161
  on pilot projects in 14 LEAs with a view to improving the quality and range of the curriculum in rural primary schools.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many under-fives have been placed in nursery education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures to be published shortly by my right hon. Friend show that, in January 1988, 285,000 children were in nursery schools or classes in England. Another 248,000 under-fives were in infant classes. The combined figure has increased by nearly 25 per cent. in eight years.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to encourage West Sussex education authority to provide more nursery places; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to encourage Hereford and Worcester education authority to provide more nursery places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to encourage West Sussex local education authority to provide more nursery places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to encourage Kent education authority to provide more nursery places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to encourage Oxfordshire education authority to provide more nursery places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to encourage Wiltshire education authority to provide more nursery places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to encourage Essex education authority to provide more nursery places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to encourage Kent education authority to provide more nursery places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Education is not compulsory below the age of five. The scope and form of provision for under-fives are wholly within local authorities' discretion. My right hon. Friend sees no cause to change that.

  Higher Education (Fees)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals for introducing changes in the administration of fees in higher education.
  162
  Mr. Jackson
  We are considering the possibility of increasing the impact of student enrolments through some shift in the public funding of higher education from the grant to be disbursed by the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council towards students' fees met under the mandatory awards arrangements. When we have a clear proposal, we shall consult the various interests before taking a decision.

  Science Teachers
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the recruitment of science teachers.

  Mr. Butcher
  Recruitment to secondary science teacher training courses has increased by 9 per cent. since the launch in 1986 of our action programme on teacher supply. We shall continue and reinforce our action programme to ensure that we have the science teachers we need in the 1990s.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the number of science teachers in primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  We project no particular problems with the supply of primary teachers. Most teaching in primary schools is carried out by the class teacher. The Government are already supporting in-service training for primary teachers through the LEA training grants scheme, and the provision of advisory staff through education support grants. Both of these schemes are providing primary teachers with extra subject expertise and support in science.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the number of science teachers in secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  We have had in place for over two years an action programme to increase the number of science teachers in secondary schools. This includes a £1,300 bursary for those undertaking initial teacher training in physics, an energetic teacher teacher recruitment publicity campaign spearheaded by the teaching as a career unit and new courses of initial teacher training. My right hon. Friend has just announced that the bursary will be extended to chemistry in September.

  Universities (Sciences)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what part he expects teaching and research in physics and chemistry to play in universities in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The University Grants Committee has recently published for consultation reports on the principles which might inform subsequent proposals for the rationalisation of physics and chemistry in universities. As in other subject reviews, the objective is to strengthen national provision in both teaching and research.

  Schools (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in
  163
  secondary schools in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Mr. Butcher
  Staffordshire spent an average of £1,040 per secondary pupil in 1978–79 and £1,255 per secondary pupil in 1986–87. The figure for the earlier year has been repriced to 1986–87 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  Teachers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to increase the supply of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take further steps to support better recruitment and retention of school teachers in geographical areas of shortage or high turnover; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department's action programme to combat teacher shortages is designed to help relieve pressure on regions with recruitment difficulties. The teaching as a career unit continues to hold discussions with local authorities on how best to improve teacher recruitment and retention.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the number of schools who have indicated their intention to seek grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now approached his Department with a view to seeking grant-maintained status.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have used the Education Reform Act 1988 to opt for grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of schools which so far have made application for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Butcher
  Eight schools have now published proposals for grant-maintained status, which my right hon. Friend will determine on their merits in due course. Parents have voted for publication of such proposals at 10 other schools, and further ballots are in preparation. The Department continues to receive numerous inquiries from parents and governors about grant-maintained status and the application procedures.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the results of the recently held ballots of parents to determine whether they wish to seek grant-maintained status for their children's schools.
  164
  Mr. Butcher
  Parents at 21 schools have voted on whether to apply to my right hon. Friend for grant-maintained status. They voted in favour at 18 schools, nearly all by a very large majority. I am pleased to note that the average turnout in the ballots so far has been 72 per cent.

  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he has made for the handling of applications by schools for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Butcher
  Where parents vote in favour of seeking grant-maintained status for a school, section 62(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires the governing body to publish proposals accordingly. My right hon. Friend will consider such proposals on their merits after taking account of any objections received.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future level of funding for research into air pollution.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Natural Environment Research Council plans to undertake research relevant to air pollution in the financial year 1989–90 at a level of some £1·1 million. This includes research on acid rain, fluorine and radionuclides. The NERC is helping organise the Glasgow international conference on acid deposition in 1990. Longer-term funding levels will be influenced by the trend of income from research commissioned by other Government Departments.

  Spelling
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to ensure that teachers have reached an acceptable standard of spelling.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since 1 September 1984, all entrants to initial teacher training courses in England and Wales and all new entrants to teaching in the maintained sector by the non-standard routes have had to have attained the standard required for grade C in the GCE at O-level or the equivalent in English.

  Scottish Universities
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the principals of Scottish universities; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have no present plans to meet the principals of the Scottish universities.

  School Meals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will establish an inquiry into the price-sensitivity of demand for school meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has no such intentions at present.

  GCSE
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has completed a review of the first year's GCSE examinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of a report from the School Examinations and Assessment Council on the first GCSE courses and examinations, and the reply I have sent today. The report confirms that the GCSE is off to a good start, and identifies a number of areas where improvement is required. I look to the council to play a central role in effecting these improvements so that we can realise the full benefits of the GCSE.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on general certificate of secondary education examinations from parents over the past nine months.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and I have received about 700 letters on GCSE since June 1987, from parents and other interested parties. The vast majority have been supportive of the principles behind the new examination.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has inquired into the reasons for the delays by some boards in announcing general certificate of secondary education results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The issuing of GCSE results is the responsibility of the independent GCSE examining groups. My right hon. Friend has made it clear to them that late results cannot be tolerated. The examining groups regret the delays that affected a small percentage of results in 1988, and have undertaken to review administrative arrangements and to take corrective measures to ensure that the problems do not recur.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received concerning his proposals for student loans.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received since the publication of the White Paper entitled "Top-up Loans for Students".

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from students in Wales, and their representatives, concerning his proposals for student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning his proposals over changes to the method of student financing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since the publication on 9 November 1988 of the White Paper on top-up loans for students, some 3,912 representations have been received. Representations from Wales are not separately recorded.
  166
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of banks and financial institutions to discuss proposals to introduce a loan scheme for maintenance of students in higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  In November. Discussions are continuing between the Department and representatives of financial institutions.

  University Lecturers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding a pay settlement for university lecturers.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers are discussing university lecturers' pay with each other: since last April, my right hon. Friend has received just over 200 letters on the topic.

  School Transport
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the rules relating to school transport.

  Mr. Butcher
  The law governing home-to-school transport is laid down by section 55 of the Education Act 1944, as amended by section 53 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  Anti-racist Policies
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities currently implement anti-racist policies in their schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information about how many local education authorities currently implement anti-racist policies in their schools is not collected centrally. It is Government policy that ethnic minority pupils should have the same opportunity as all others to profit from what schools can offer them and that schools should preserve and transmit our national values in a way which accepts Britain's ethnic diversity and promotes tolerance and racial harmony. It is for individual local education authorities and schools to determine, in the light of their own needs and circumstances, how to give effect to this policy.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on what progress has been made in the implementation of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Implementation of the Act is proceeding on schedule. The following steps have been taken:The Government plan to implement section 5, which is concerned with the approval of qualifications and syllabuses for pupils of compulsory school age, with effect from 1 August 1989. The proposed arrangements are set out in a draft circular which was issued for consultation before Christmas.
  We are on course to start the phased implementation of the national curriculum from this autumn: development work has begun on the attainment tests in readiness for the first run in 1991.

  167
  Local education authorities have been required to submit, in most cases, by September 1989 schemes for the local management of schools, for introduction the following April. Local education authorities and governors of secondary schools must also be prepared from August 1990 to admit eligible pupils up to the assessed capacity of the school building. Preparations for the transfer of education responsibilities from ILEA to the inner London boroughs in April 1990 are well in hand.
  The Act gives schools the opportunity to opt out of local authority control and become grant-maintained. Parental ballots have now been held at 19 schools on whether to seek grant-maintained status.
  There has been excellent progress in the establishment of city technology colleges. Sponsorship has already been announced for 10 CTCs, and further announcements -will be made soon.
  The Department's circulars 8/88 and 9/88 were issued in September 1988 requiring local education authorities to reform the governing bodies of their further education colleges and to draw up schemes of planning and delegation for those colleges.
  Sections 214-216, on bogus degrees, came into force on 30 November 1988; orders made under section 216 came into effect on the same date.
  The Act's new arrangements for higher education will be in full operation from 1 April 1989. We have established the higher education corporations to take over the running of polytechnics and major colleges of higher education as independent institutions, as well as the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
  We have also established the Education Assets Board to oversee the transfer of assets and liabilities from local education authorities to relevant institutions in the PCFC sector and to grant-maintained schools.
  With respect to the provisions on academic tenure, the university commissioners and their staff have been appointed and they have begun their work of reviewing statutes for modification.

  Gifted Children
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources are made available(a) nationally and (b) in north Yorkshire for the education of gifted children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not held centrally at present. However, the Department is sponsoring a survey of current local education authority provision for the most able pupils to be carried out by the National Association for Gifted Children. The association intends to invite all LEAs in England and Wales to participate and hopes to complete the survey by the summer.

  Languages
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take to encourage more pupils to learn to speak foreign languages.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government's policy on modern foreign languages in the school curriculum was set out in the January 1988 policy statement, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. The national curriculum will include a modern foreign language as a foundation subject at secondary level to be studied by each pupil between the ages of 11 and 16. Within this framework, my right hon. Friend is encouraging a greater diversity of languages offered in the school curriculum.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secrertary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is 168
  taking to encourage a growth in, and the take-up of, places available in foreign language courses at further and higher education levels.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government are concerned to increase the number of pupils continuing to study a foreign language until age 16 and beyond. Our proposals for a national curriculum include a modern foreign language as a foundation subject at secondary level to be studied by all pupils between the ages of 11 and 16. We hope that the greater numbers studying a language to that age will result in an increase in those continuing with further language learning not only in the sixth form but also in further and higher education, so stimulating demand.

  The Government are working to make the whole of the education system, including the provision for foreign languages in further and higher education, more responsive to demand.

  In addition, the network of language export centres, funded by the Department's professional, industrial and commercial updating programme (PICKUP) and the Training Agency, brings together universities, polytechnics and colleges to help firms meet their language training needs.

  Truancy
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will hold a national inquiry into truancy among school children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend does not intend to hold such an inquiry. Under the Education Acts, the responsibility for taking action on truancy rests with local education authorities. They should ensure that attendance levels in their schools are monitored and that action is taken to keep them under control.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to support and develop fundamental research into factors affecting the environment and to encourage the work of the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to promote fundamental research into the greenhouse effect and other global environmental issues and to fund the research programmes of the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government are committed to support for fundamental research, in particular in the environmental field. It is for the Natural Environment Research Council and other Research Councils to plan scientific priorities within the overall funds available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce the 1989–90 allocations to research councils as soon as possible.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he expects the pupil-teacher ratio on average for Inner London boroughs to be higher or
  169
  lower than the indicated ratio for the Inner London education authority of 16:1 for nursery, 17:1 for primary, 13:1 for secondary and 5:7 for special.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  All teaching and non-teaching staff in ILEA schools will on 1 April 1990 transfer to the employment of the council by which their school is to be maintained. Thereafter, staffing policy will be the responsibility of the inner London councils and, with the implementation of schemes of local management, the governors of the schools.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current pupil-teacher ratio for secondary schools in Greater London.

  Mr. Butcher
  In January 1988, the pupil-teacher ratio within maintained secondary schools in Greater London was 14:1.

  School Improvements
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to encourage developers to make financial contributions towards school improvements in areas where significant numbers of children of school age have been added to school rolls.

  Mr. Butcher
  Local education authorities are responsible for ensuring that sufficient school places are available in their areas. My right hon. Friend welcomes, in principle, any agreement between an LEA and developer that leads to the private sector investing in improvements in schools.

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that Her Majesty's inspectors are sufficiently diligent in detecting below average standards of teaching and achievement of pupils.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Her Majesty's Inspector's central concern has always been with standards of teaching and learning, and it reports regularly to me on those and other such matters. The senior chief inspector is directly responsible for the performance of the inspectorate, but I study carefully the reports that are submitted to me, which are also open to public scrutiny. I am satisfied that HMI already carries out its functions effectively and diligently.

  School Activities (Charges)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has received from education authorities to departmental circular 2/89 entitled, "Education Reform Act 1988, Charges for School Activities".

  Mr. Butcher
  None.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received following the announcement of the 1989–90 capital allocations to local education authorities.

  Mr. Butcher
  A total of 26 representations have been received from hon. Members, local authorities and school 170
  governors. Fourteen of these relate to the prescribed capital allocations to local education authorities and 12 to the allocations for voluntary aided and special agreement schools.

  Durham University
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received from the university of Durham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The university has recently made representations about the cost of repairs to Durham castle, on which my right hon. Friend has seen no case for the supplementation of help available through existing channels. It has also notified us of an outline proposal to establish a college on Teesside which, depending on the outcome of local consultations, may lead to the need for decisions at national level.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many city technology colleges are now envisaged.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many city technology colleges he has planned to open during the present year.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many city technology colleges he expects to commence in 1989.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many city technology colleges have so far been announced.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The city technology colleges programme continues to make excellent progress. Kingshurst CTC opened last year and two more, at Teesside and Nottingham, will open in September this year. CTCs in Bradford and Gateshead are planned to open in September 1990. In addition, sponsors have announced their intention to establish five other CTCs. Further announcements will be made soon.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to restore negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).

  School Curriculum
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make regulations under section 22 of the Education Act 1988 governing the supply and publication of information concerning the school curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has today issued for statutory consultations a draft of the first regulations
  171
  he proposes to make under section 22. These are intended to take effect from the 1989–90 school year. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Graduates
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many graduates entered industry during the latest year that figures are available; and what proportion this was of the total number of students graduating.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1987, 16,600 first degree graduates in Great Britain entered industry. This accounted for 17 per cent. of the total first degree graduates of known destination in Great Britain. The destination of graduates from part-time courses in polytechnics and colleges is not obtained.

  Science Budget
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the advice he has received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the allocation of the science budget for 1989–90.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is planning to introduce any proposals for teacher training in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the near future, my right hon. Friend will be announcing his decision on the outcome of the consultation on the proposals for the reform of on-standard routes into teaching; the aggregate intake numbers for initial teacher training for 1990, together with the split between sectors, undergraduate and postgraduate courses, phases and secondary phase subjects—and later the proposed distribution between institutions in the PCFC sector; his proposals for the approval of courses of initial teacher training when the term of office of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education expires at the end of 1989; his proposals for the national priority areas in the LEA training grant scheme for 1990–91. In addition, the Government keep under constant review the scope for encouraging innovatory developments in teacher training designed to enhance the quality of the teaching force and help to meet the demand for teachers.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are estimated to leave Britain's primary schools and secondary schools with inadequate literacy and numeracy.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not available in the form requested. Attainment targets for English and mathematics in the national curriculum will establish what pupils should be able to achieve at ages seven, 11, 14 and 16. The introduction of assessment at those ages will mean that any pupils having difficulty will be identified at an early stage and can he given help.

  Classics
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the teaching of classics in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend attaches importance to the study of classics in schools. Its potential was illustrated in Her Majesty's inspectorate's recent publication "Classics from 5 to 16". Schools will still be able to offer classics outside the national curriculum in the early secondary years, as an option to fourth and fifth year pupils, and in the sixth form. We hope that parental and public demand will encourage such provision. In addition my right hon. Friend has asked the national curriculum working groups on English and history to consider t
  contribution of classical studies, as a cross-curricular theme, to the attainment targets and programmes of study for these subjects.

  Degrees
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what studies have been undertaken by his Department as to the effect on education of the single European market, with special regard to the common recognition of degrees and the outlawing of bogus degrees.

  Mr. Jackson
  The implications of the single European market for education are kept under continuous review. In further and higher education, many courses already address employers' single market training needs; further demand can be expected to develop in a wide range of fields. The Education Reform Act 1988, in providing for increased involvement of employers in the government of all education institutions, will facilitate a direct response to that demand. The United Kingdom is participating fully under the European Community's ERASMUS programme in the development of a European credit transfer scheme designed to contribute to the recognition for academic purposes of higher education qualifications obtained and periods of study spent in different member states. The Government gave full support during negotiations in Brussels to the principle of the directive on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas for professional purposes which was adopted unanimously by the Council of Ministers on 21 December 1988. Finally, although not as part of any European Community initiative, the Government brought into effect on 30 November 1988 sections 214 to 216 of the Education Reform Act 1988 under which it is now a criminal offence to award, or to offer to award, an unrecognised United Kingdom degree.

  At school level, the work of the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council will have regard to the resolution of the Council of Ministers on the European dimension in education.

  New Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy for capital expenditure for new schools in areas of rapidly increasing population.

  Mr. Butcher
  Local education authorities are responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient school places for
  173
  every child in their areas. To enable local authorities to meet their statutory obligations my right hon. Friend gives priority, when making capital allocations to those authorities who submit capital plans to provide additional school places to meet a rise in the local school population.

  Schools-industry Links
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with industrialists about links between school and industry.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department is keen to encourage the development of links between school and industry in many ways. To this end, my colleagues and I have regular meetings with industrialists to discuss ways in which they can take advantage of the opportunities offered by recent legislation to become involved with schools.

  Computer Software
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to review the types of computer software available to schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  A statistical survey undertaken by the Department in February 1988 obtained information about the software packages used most regularly in schools. The result of this survey will be published shortly.

  Association of University Teachers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the Association of University Teachers; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not recently met the AUT, but we are in touch with it from time to time in the same way as we are in touch with a wide variety of bodies in order to keep abreast of developments.

  Project

  Principal investigator

  Award

  Genetic engineering of listeria monocytogenes designed to enable the development of rapid bioluminescent phage detection.

  Dr. G. S. A. B. Stewart, Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, University of Nottingham.

  £31,800 for 2 years from 1 October 1988.

  Improvements in methods of detection and enumeration of sub-lethally injured bacteria.

  Dr. G. S. A. B. Stewart, Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, University of Nottingham.

  £47,300 for 3 years from 1 January 1989.

  Application of specific antibodies to enzymic methods for sensitive and routine detection of botulinum neurotoxins in foods.

  Dr. J. O. Dolly, Department of Biochemistry, Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London.

  £59,000 for 3 years from 1 April 1986.

  Note: In addition, universities carry out research from general university funds which may be of relevance to food poisoning.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South of 22 December 1988,Official Report, column 388, when he expects a full inspection to be made of the Small School at Red House, Norwich; and if the reports by the inspector following his visit in November 1988 will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are no immediate plans to undertake a full inspection of the Small School at Red House, nor was the visit paid to the school by HMI in

  University Students (Science Courses)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of first time university students entered full-time courses in science for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  Full-time undergraduates new entrants to universities in Great Britain

  Academic year beginning in

  Percentage science

  1975

  49

  1976

  50

  1977

  50

  1978

  50

  1979

  50

  1980

  51

  1981

  55

  1982

  52

  1983

  52

  1984

  51

  1985

  50

  1986

  49

  1987

  49

  In 1985 a new subject classification was introduced, and figures are not therefore comparable with previous years' data.

  Food Poisoning (Research)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what university research departments in the United Kingdom are carrying out projects on food poisoning funded by his Department.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Agricultural and Food Research Council, which receives a grant-in-aid from this Department, is supporting the following projects at universities:

  November 1988 a full inspection. Only full inspection reports are placed in the Library. HMI notes of visit are internal working documents and it is not appropriate to make their contents public. I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the impact upon the educational abilities of children in Nottingham of the closure of hospitals in the Nottingham area; and if he will make a statement.
  175
  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend understands that the Nottingham health authority is considering the closure of St. Anne's hospital, to which a special school is attached, and I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 January at column 17. Under the Education Act 1981, it is for the local education authority to consider how it provides for children in its area with special educational needs.

  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his reply of 19 January,Official Report, column 265, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, he will publish a list of those local education authorities which, in respect of claims for 1987–88 (a) have claimed significantly less than the maximum allocated amount for 1987–88 or (b) have not yet made final claims for all quarters of 1987–88, showing for each of (a) and (b) the amount underspent or apparently unclaimed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  (a) The following LEAs underspent by 5 per cent. or more in 1987–88:

  Local Education Authority

  Total Amount Unclaimed £

  Underspend as a percentage of total maxima

  Avon

  712,654

  19·4

  Bamsley

  195,989

  14·0

  Berkshire

  1280,415

  10·5

  Bexley

  154,897

  7·1

  Bradford

  330,257

  9·4

  Brent

  72,748

  7·1

  Haringey

  184,014

  8·1

  Hertfordshire

  310,978

  7·3

  Isles of Scilly

  1,800

  18·0

  Leeds

  1385,346

  9·8

  Lincolnshire

  357,926

  16·9

  Liverpool

  221,760

  8·7

  Merton

  188,986

  17·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  136,449

  7·2

  North Yorkshire

  137,589

  5·4

  Redbridge

  169,790

  10·1

  Sandwell

  192,058

  6·9

  Sefton

  116,427

  8·9

  Solihull

  112,310

  12·9

  Sutton

  1109,920

  21·8

  Warwickshire

  1104,025

  5·3

  1 Based on provisional end of year claims only.

  (b) Waltham Forest has not yet submitted a final claim for all quarters of 1987–88:

  Total Maxima £

  Total amount yet to be claimed £

  915,000

  355,420

  North Molton Primary School
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional funds available to Devon county council to include North Molton primary school replacement in the 1989–90 programme.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is for the Devon local education authority to decide what priority for funding to accord to particular projects, including North Molton, and to decide which of them to fund in 1989–90. For the 1989–90 176
  financial year, the authority was allocated £14.177 million in respect of prescribed expenditure on county and voluntary controlled schools and FHE, representing a 68 per cent. increase on its allocation for 1988–89.

  Class Sizes
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report figures showing the percentage of pupils in primary and secondary schools in classes of 30 and over for each local education authority in England in rank order.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: The percentage of pupils in classes of 30 and over in maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1988 ranked in order was as follows. The analyses relate to classes taught by one teacher during a selected period on the day of the schools census and do not necessarily represent the pattern of classes over the academic year as a whole.

  Percentage of pupils in primary and secondary schools in classes of 30 and over in rank order—January 1988

  Per cent.

  Primary

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  Barking

  7·7

  Haringey

  8·4

  North Tyneside

  9·1

  Inner London

  10·2

  South Tyneside

  11·0

  Sheffield

  13·5

  Gateshead

  14·3

  Newham

  14·7

  Rotherham

  14·9

  Barnsley

  15·4

  Brent

  17·5

  Salford

  17·6

  Wolverhampton

  17·9

  Ealing

  18·1

  Wirral

  18·5

  Nottinghamshire

  18·9

  Doncaster

  19·7

  Knowsley

  20·1

  Suffolk

  21·3

  Waltham Forest

  21·3

  Walsall

  22·2

  Hillingdon

  22·7

  Bradford

  23·0

  Sunderland

  23·4

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  24·2

  Cleveland

  24·2

  Barnet

  24·3

  Liverpool

  24·9

  Cumbria

  25·5

  Shropshire

  25·6

  Humberside

  27·0

  Surrey

  27·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  27·1

  Croydon

  27·6

  Wiltshire

  28·0

  Manchester

  28·7

  Hounslow

  29·0

  Coventry

  29·3

  North Yorkshire

  29·5

  Durham

  29·6

  Leicestershire

  29·9

  Norfolk

  29·9

  Wakefield

  30·5

  Staffordshire

  31·1

  Havering

  31·4

  Isle of Wight

  31·4

  Hertfordshire

  31·5

  Bedfordshire

  31·7

  Kirklees

  32·1

  177

  Per cent.

  Oxfordshire

  32·3

  St. Helens

  32·4

  Bexley

  32·6

  Calderdale

  33·4

  Enfield

  33·4

  Bromley

  33·6

  Leeds

  34·5

  Northamptonshire

  34·7

  Sandwell

  35·2

  Derbyshire

  35·2

  Warwickshire

  35·5

  West Sussex

  35·8

  Sefton

  36·0

  Berkshire

  36·3

  Essex

  36·6

  Dudley

  36·4

  Bury

  37·0

  Stockport

  37·3

  Wigan

  37·6

  Devon

  38·0

  Sutton

  38·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  38·7

  Cambridgeshire

  39·0

  Hampshire

  39·6

  Rochdale

  39·8

  Tameside

  40·0

  Gloucestershire

  40·1

  Merton

  40·1

  Lincolnshire

  41·6

  Kingston upon Thames

  42·2

  East Sussex

  42·7

  Trafford

  43·4

  Cornwall

  43·5

  Solihull

  43·6

  Somerset

  43·9

  Harrow

  44·7

  Buckinghamshire

  45·2

  Lancashire

  45·4

  Bolton

  45·7

  Kent

  46·2

  Dorset

  46·9

  Northumberland

  48·5

  Oldham

  48·6

  Birmingham

  49·3

  Avon

  49·8

  Cheshire

  50·3

  Redbridge

  56·4

  England

  32·9

  Secondary

  Haringey

  0·0

  Isles of Stilly

  0·0

  Brent

  2·7

  Salford

  3·8

  Trafford

  4·5

  Inner London

  5·0

  North Tyneside

  5·2

  Wigan

  5·4

  Waltham Forest

  5·6

  Wolverhampton

  6·2

  Barking

  6·5

  Newham

  6·6

  Leicestershire

  6·7

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  7·0

  Dudley

  7·0

  Cleveland

  l·1

  Knowsley

  7·2

  Ealing

  7·6

  Rochdale

  7·6

  Norfolk

  8·4

  Sheffield

  8·4

  Shropshire

  8·6

  Nottinghamshire

  8·7

  Sandwell

  9·0

  South Tyneside

  9·3

  Suffolk

  9·8

  Wakefield

  9·8

  178

  Percent.

  Barnsley

  10·1

  Walsall

  10·1

  Kirklees

  10·3

  Manchester

  10·3

  Doncaster

  10·8

  Richmond upon Thames

  10·9

  Cumbria

  10·9

  Northamptonshire

  11·8

  Harrow

  11·9

  St. Helens

  12·4

  Hampshire

  12·4

  Humberside

  12·6

  Wiltshire

  12·7

  Derbyshire

  13·1

  Bolton

  13·1

  Leeds

  13·1

  Bradford

  13·3

  Buckinghamshire

  13·4

  Rotherham

  13·6

  Northumberland

  13·8

  Stockport

  13·8

  Warwickshire

  13·8

  Wirral

  13·9

  Surrey

  14·3

  Bedfordshire

  14·3

  Hounslow

  14·4

  Merton

  14·4

  Kent

  14·4

  Somerset

  14·8

  Cambridgeshire

  15·0

  Hertfordshire

  15·0

  Lincolnshire

  15·2

  Isle of Wight

  15·2

  Coventry

  15·4

  North Yorkshire

  15·4

  East Sussex

  15·5

  Oxfordshire

  15·7

  Hillingdon

  15·7

  Berkshire

  16·0

  Calderdale

  16·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  16·1

  Lancashire

  16·8

  Staffordshire

  16·8

  Solihull

  16·8

  Tameside

  16·9

  Bury

  17·0

  Croydon

  17·1

  Redbridge

  17·2

  Essex

  17·2

  Durham

  17·3

  Oldham

  17·3

  Barnet

  17·4

  Cheshire

  17·8

  Avon

  18·1

  Havering

  18·1

  Liverpool

  18·2

  Dorset

  18·2

  Sunderland

  18·3

  Devon

  18·4

  Sutton

  18·5

  Bromley

  18·6

  Cornwall

  18·9

  West Sussex

  19·1

  Sefton

  19·6

  Gloucestershire

  19·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  19·7

  Birmingham

  20·7

  Gateshead

  21·3

  Bexley

  22·2

  Enfield

  24·5

  ENGLAND

  13·7

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official

  179
  Report figures showing the percentage of pupils in primary and secondary schools in classes of 35 and over for each local education authority in England in rank order.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: The percentage of pupils in classes of 35 and over in maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1988 ranked in order was as follows. The analyses relate to classes taught by one teacher during a selected period on the day of the schools census and do not necessarily represent the pattern of classes over the academic year as a whole.

  Percentage of pupils in primary and secondary schools in classes of 35 and over in rank order January 1988

  Per cent.

  Primary

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  Inner London

  0·2

  North Tyneside

  0·3

  Newham

  0·3

  Havering

  0·4

  Bradford

  0·5

  Ealing

  0·5

  Bromley

  0·6

  Suffolk

  0·6

  Haringey

  0·6

  Essex

  0·8

  Calderdale

  0·9

  Waltham Forest

  0·9

  Rotherham

  0·9

  Barking

  0·9

  Gateshead

  0·9

  Barent

  1·0

  Wiltshire

  1·0

  Barnsley

  1·1

  South Tyneside

  1·2

  Wirral

  1·4

  Sunderland

  1·5

  Brent

  1·7

  Richmond upon Thames

  1·7

  Walsall

  2·0

  Enfield

  2·0

  Sheffield

  2·0

  Norfolk

  2·0

  Gloucestershire

  2·1

  Croydon

  2·2

  Newcastle· upon·Tyne

  2·2

  Bexley

  2·3

  Shropshire

  2·3

  Leicestershire

  2·4

  Isle of Wight

  2·4

  Liverpool

  2·4

  Hertfordshire

  2·4

  Tameside

  2·5

  Northamptonshire

  2·6

  Cumbria

  2·6

  Wolverhampton

  2·7

  Surrey

  2·8

  Oxfordshire

  2·8

  North Yorkshire

  2·8

  Doncaster

  2·9

  Hampshire

  2·9

  Coventry

  3·0

  Knowsley

  3·0

  Salford

  3·0

  Durham

  3·2

  Cambridgeshire

  3·2

  Dudley

  3·2

  Kent

  3·2

  Hereford and Worcester

  3·3

  West Sussex

  3·3

  Warwickshire

  3·4

  Berkshire

  3·5

  Nottinghamshire

  3·6

  Hillingdon

  3·6

  Humberside

  3·7

  Kirklees

  3·8

  180

  Per cent.

  Merton

  4·0

  Sandwell

  4·0

  Derbyshire

  4·5

  Cleveland

  4·6

  Manchester

  4·6

  Somerset

  4·6

  East Sussex

  4·8

  Wakefield

  5·0

  Staffordshire

  5·1

  Hounslow

  5·2

  Bedfordshire

  5·2

  Sefton

  5·3

  Birmingham

  5·4

  St. Helens

  5·5

  Stockport

  5·6

  Bury

  5·9

  Buckinghamshire

  5·9

  Avon

  6·1

  Leeds

  6·2

  Solihull

  6·7

  Cornwall

  6·8

  Devon

  7·0

  Sutton

  7·1

  Rochdale

  7·1

  Northumberland

  7·1

  Harrow

  7·3

  Kingston upon Thames

  8·2

  Wigan

  9·3

  Oldham

  9·3

  Lincolnshire

  9·5

  Dorset

  9·8

  Lancashire

  10·0

  Cheshire

  10·8

  Trafford

  11·3

  Redbridge

  11·8

  Bolton

  12·3

  England

  3·9

  Secondary

  Barnet

  0·0

  Bamsley

  0·0

  Bexley

  0·0

  Brent

  0·0

  Croydon

  0·0

  Cumbria

  0·0

  Doncaster

  0·0

  Dudley

  0·0

  Ealing

  0·0

  Gateshead

  0·0

  Haringey

  0·0

  Harrow

  0·0

  Hillingdon

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  Merton

  0·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0·0

  Newham

  0·0

  North Tyneside

  0·0

  Redbridge

  0·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·0

  Rochdale

  0·0

  Salford

  0·0

  Sheffield

  0·0

  South Tyneside

  0·0

  St. Helens

  0·0

  Suffolk

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0·0

  Sutton

  0·0

  Trafford

  0·0

  Walsall

  0·0

  Wigan

  0·0

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  Kent

  0·1

  Inner London

  0·1

  Cleveland

  0·1

  Hertfordshire

  0·1

  Leicestershire

  0·1

  Gloucestershire

  0·1

  181

  Per cent.

  Wakefield

  0·2

  Sandwell

  0·2

  Cambridgeshire

  0·2

  Havering

  0·2

  Bromley

  0·2

  Nottinghamshire

  0·2

  Durham

  0·2

  Somerset

  0·3

  Northamptonshire

  0·3

  Oldham

  0·3

  Shropshire

  0·3

  Kirklees

  0·3

  Warwickshire

  0·3

  Tameside

  0·3

  Norfolk

  0·3

  North Yorkshire

  0·3

  Northumberland

  0·3

  Lincolnshire

  0·3

  Hounslow

  0·3

  Coventry

  0·3

  Manchester

  0·3

  Buckinghamshire

  0·3

  Essex

  0·4

  Bury

  0·4

  Knowsley

  0·4

  Sefton

  0·4

  Hampshire

  0·4

  Birmingham

  0·4

  Isle of Wight

  0·4

  Waltham Forest

  0·4

  Humberside

  0·4

  Bolton

  0·4

  Oxfordshire

  0·4

  Barking

  0·5

  Enfield

  0·5

  Wirral

  0·5

  Devon

  0·5

  East Sussex

  0·6

  Berkshire

  0·6

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·6

  Surrey

  0·6

  Calderdale

  0·6

  Rotherham

  0·6

  Derbyshire

  0·6

  Lancashire

  0·7

  Bedfordshire

  0·7

  Bradford

  0·7

  Solihull

  0·8

  Cheshire

  0·8

  Staffordshire

  0·9

  Stockport

  1·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·0

  Dorset

  1·0

  Liverpool

  1·2

  Avon

  1·2

  West Sussex

  1·2

  Leeds

  1·4

  Cornwall

  1·4

  Wiltshire

  1·4

  England

  0·4

  Single European Market
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on educating European national school age children in British schools when their circumstances bring them to Britain for a period of time; and if he expects to change that policy in the light of 1992.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: Under the Education Act 1944, local education authorities already have a duty to provide suitable and efficient primary and secondary education free of charge for all
  182
  children in their areas. This duty applies equally to British children and to school-age children accompanying EC nationals and is not affected by the move to a single European market in 1992.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food (Storage)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the estimated food types and quantities which were in storage in the United Kingdom under European Economic Community agreements on 3 January.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Food types and quantities in storage under EC regulationary provisions on 31 December 1988, (the nearest available date) were as follows:

  Tonnes

  Intervention stocks

  Private storage

  Beef

  25,000

  2,497

  Butter

  24,179

  448

  Grain1

  1,162,000

  0

  Pigmeat

  0

  62

  Sugar

  0

  2967,878

  1 Including grain for animal feed.

  2 Stocks held under community storage refund scheme plus regional minimum stock held by cane sugar refiner.

  Pig Farmers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the information he has on the number of pig farmers that have gone into liquidation in Derbyshire in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Meat Production (Hormones)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has that the use of hormones in United States of America meat production poses hazards to human health; and if he will make a statement on the ban imposed on the import of such meat.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no evidence that the use of growth-promoting hormone products under appropriate conditions poses any hazard to human health. This Government have therefore consistently opposed the EC hormones ban and are continuing to work for a solution to the trade difficulties with the United States it has caused.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of slaughterhouses in England and Wales; and what is the total number approved for exporting to the European Economic Community, for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:
  183

  Slaughterhouses in England and Wales

  December

  Total

  EC-approved

  1983

  942

  59

  1984

  931

  61

  1985

  916

  64

  1986

  867

  67

  1987

  853

  60

  1988

  1—

  57

  1 Not yet available.

  Plasticisers (Clingfilm)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for the health of consumers of the use of plasticisers in clingfilm, used to wrap food products.

  Mr. Ryder
  This matter has been the subject of detailed investigation, the results of which have been assessed by an independent expert committee. The committee's advice was that it was very unlikely that there were any adverse health effects from the current or past use of plasticisers in clingfilm.

  Nevertheless, as a matter of prudence, action has been taken to secure the reformulation of clingfilm so as to reduce dietary intakes of the major plasticiser, and further survey work is in hand within the Government's comprehensive food surveillance arrangements.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure consumer awareness of the health implications of the use of plasticisers in clingfilm and of the existence of products without plasticisers.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department has agreed with the industry the wording to be used on clingfilm packaging which gives advice to consumers on the use of the product. This advice applies to all clingfilms, whether or not they contain plasticisers. In a press statement on 22 December 1986 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary drew the attention of the public to the need to follow the guidance provided.

  Beef
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give in tabular form the proportion of the beef production of each member state of the European Community which will not benefit from the recently agreed special beef premiums.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Precise information of the kind requested is not available. The Community special premium for beef will apply to the first 90 male animals per holding. An indication of the effect of the limitation of the premium to male animals only is provided by the table which shows the proportion of slaughterings of male and female cattle in each member state. The limitation to 90 head will also have an effect on uptake. This will depend on farm structure, decisions by farmers on how they manage their enterprises and market cattle and on the methods used to administer the premium.
  184

  Proportion of male cattle (steers and bulls) and female cattle (cows and heifers) slaughtered in each EC member state (1987)

  Male animals (per cent.)

  Female animals (per cent.)

  Belgium

  40·4

  59·6

  Denmark

  48·5

  51·5

  Germany

  49·0

  51·0

  Greece

  71·6

  28·4

  Spain

  50·4

  49·6

  France

  33·7

  66·3

  Ireland

  55·0

  45·0

  Italy

  70·4

  29·6

  Luxembourg

  34·3

  65·7

  Netherlands

  27·0

  73·0

  Portugal

  50·1

  49·9

  United Kingdom

  48·3

  51·7

  EC12

  48·3

  51·7

  Source: EUROSTAT.

  Ministerial Advisers (Salaries)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure on salaries of ministerial advisers in his Department for each completed year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have nothing to add to the information that I gave the hon. Member in my reply of 16 January at column 55.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what evidence or advice he has received from his veterinary products committee on the safety of the Monsanto experimental farm trials with bovine somatotropin in cows;

  (2) what advice he has received from the veterinary products committee on the safety of BST, including that based on the evidence received from Townsend.

  Mr. Ryder
  No field trials of veterinary products, including BST, are authorised until the veterinary products committee, following a rigorous evaluation of all pertinent data, advises that they are safe.

  Butter
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke on 26 January 1989, he will give the figure:. for each year since 1973 for the percentage of the United Kingdom packet butter market, retailed to the non-industrial consumer accounted for by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland, (c) France, (d) New Zealand, (e) Denmark, (f) the Netherlands and (g) Belgium and Luxembourg.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is not available except in the form given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply of 26 January at columns 697–98.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has as to whether salmonella is transmitted from rats to poultry; and if he will make a statement.
  185
  Mr. Ryder
  I have no specific evidence that salmonella is transmitted from rats to poultry although it is recognised that animals such as rats are susceptible to salmonella. As part of the further measures to combat salmonella, I propose to strengthen the statutory controls for the control of rodents on poultry farms.

  Radiation (Sheep)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what powers he served his direction on the owner of the flock of sheep in North Yorkshire where radioactivity readings were found to be above 1,000 bq/kg.

  Mr. Ryder
  The direction was served under section 2(3) of part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  EC Structural Funds
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria were used by the Government in selecting the United Kingdom agricultural areas to benefit under section 5(b) of the European Economic Community's proposed new rules for the reform of European Economic Community structural funds.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Objective 5(b) is
  "promoting the development of rural areas".

  The European Commission is to determine which areas are eligible; it has already assured us that they will include the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, rural Wales, and the assisted areas of Devon and Cornwall. The criteria for the selection are in article 4 of Council regulation (EEC) No. 4253/88.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the net cost to the United Kingdom for each of the last three years of the common agricultural policy.

  Mecu1

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  United Kingdom

  Cereals

  Storage/financing costs

  1·7

  10·9

  134·9

  9·0

  23·3

  55·1

  1·3

  48·7

  2..

  0·2

  —

  33·7

  Losses on sale

  12·0

  60·8

  744·0

  -20·9

  99·9

  235·6

  8·7

  336·5

  0·1

  1·3

  —

  225·2

  Sugar

  Private storage

  23·5

  12·6

  102·7

  2·5

  18·1

  133·5

  5·8

  62·9

  —

  40·0

  0·9

  27·1

  Public storage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Olive oil

  Storage costs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43·6

  —

  —

  24·3

  —

  —

  1·2

  —

  Losses on sale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·0

  —

  —

  15·9

  —

  —

  -1·0

  —

  Oilseeds

  Storage costs

  —

  —

  2..

  —

  1·8

  0·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -0·1

  —0·2

  Wine and grape must

  Private storage

  —

  —

  0·5

  4·3

  15·5

  30·1

  —

  35·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wine/alcohol

  Intervention costs

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  85·5

  175·1

  —

  185·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Depreciation of stocks

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46·9

  33·7

  —

  65·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  186
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: Public expenditure in the United Kingdom under the Common Agricultural Policy in the last three years has been as follows:—

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  1,400

  1987–88

  1,610

  1988–89

  11,470

  1 Forecast.

  These figures include all expenditure under Community market support and structural aid schemes for agriculture, but exclude related expenditure such as national aid schemes, disease prevention, advice, research and development and administration.

  This expenditure is funded entirely by the United Kingdom, either directly or indirectly through the Community budget. In addition, the Exchequer supports spending under the CAP elsewhere in the Community through our net contribution to the EC budget, which in the same three years is estimated at £1,079 million, £1,164 million and £950 million. Over that period CAP spending has made up over two thirds of the EC budget.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the cost of common agricultural policy intervention buying and storage during 1988 in each of the European Economic Community member states and for each commodity for which an intervention regime exists.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: Provisional figures for 1988 Community expenditure on private storage (sugar, wine and grape must, butter, beef, sheepmeat and pigmeat) and on public intervention (cereals, sugar, olive oil, oilseeds, wine alcohol, tobacco, skimmed milk powder, butter and beef, are given in the table.

  The purchase of stock into public intervention is funded by the member states, which are reimbursed by the Community for storage in addition, for the first time in 1988, there was significant expenditure on depreciation of newly-farmed stocks (cereals, alcohol, tobacco, butter and beef) under arrangements agreed by the European Council in February 1988.
  187

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  United Kingdom

  Tobacco

  Storage/financing costs

  —

  —

  —

  8·3

  —

  0·2

  —

  2·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Losses on sale/depreciation of stocks

  —

  —

  —

  11·2

  —

  0·1

  —

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Skimmed milk powder

  Storage/financing costs

  2..

  0·1

  45·6

  0·3

  1·6

  —

  2..

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  Losses on sale

  2..

  -0·3

  -54·5

  1-·5

  -0·7

  —

  -0·4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  -0·8

  Butter

  Private storage

  8·9

  0·2

  11 ·3

  —

  —

  12·5

  5·4

  0·5

  0·1

  12·5

  —

  2·1

  Storage/financing costs

  5·8

  2·2

  89·3

  —

  6·6

  39·5

  48·3

  4·7

  0·1

  68·8

  —

  64·4

  Losses on sale/depreciation of stocks

  8·9

  19·2

  243·4

  —

  29·2

  171·7

  34·1

  ·45·5

  —

  86·0

  —

  84·1

  Beef

  Private storage

  0·8

  0·9

  15·4

  —

  —

  2·7

  31·0

  5·7

  —

  1·5

  —

  2·2

  Storage/financing costs

  3·0

  11·2

  66·9

  —

  6·6

  76·0

  46·9

  34·0

  —

  14·8

  —

  19·6

  Losses on sale/depreciation of stocks

  8·4

  43·9

  262·6

  2..

  14·4

  298·6

  206·0

  108·4

  2..

  61·1

  —

  89·5

  Sheep/goals

  Private storage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pigmeat

  Private storage

  6·8

  8·9

  7·0

  —

  2·6

  2·6

  0·1

  7·7

  —

  7·1

  —

  0·4

  1 1 mecu is approximately £670,000.

  2.. less than 0·05.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. George Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the latest figures for principal discharges of liquid radioactive waste from United Kingdom nuclear establishments for 1987 and 1988 in the form of table 1 of the report on "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles", published by the directorate of fisheries research.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: The 1987 figures for principal discharges of liquid radioactive waste from United Kingdom nuclear establishments were published in the form requested by my Ministry last October in a report entitled "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles, 1987". A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House at that time. Figures for 1988 will be published later this year.

  Region

  Linear Accelerators

  Cobalt Units

  Orthovoltage Units

  Afterloading Units

  Total

  East Anglian

  5

  3

  5

  4

  17

  Mersey

  5

  0

  3

  2

  10

  North East Thames

  10

  9

  14

  4

  37

  Northern

  5

  3

  4

  5

  17

  North-Western

  6

  1

  1

  3

  11

  North-West Thames

  7

  10

  13

  3

  33

  Oxford

  3

  4

  7

  0

  14

  South-East Thames

  4

  11

  17

  6

  38

  South-West Thames

  1

  3

  3

  not known

  7

  South-Western

  9

  6

  13

  5

  33

  Trent

  9

  4

  11

  4

  28

  West Midlands

  8

  7

  10

  3

  28

  Wessex

  8

  1

  8

  2

  19

  Yorkshire

  5

  3

  3

  3

  14

  Special Health Authorities

  9

  5

  6

  3

  23

  94

  70

  118

  47

  329

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to him on the costs of
  188

HEALTH

  Mental Illness
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there are plans to introduce ethnic monitoring of admissions under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans, although the subject is kept under review by the Department.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many radiation machines were within the National Health Service; and at what locations in(a) 1983 and (b)

  Mr. Freeman
  Information in respect of 1983 is not readily available centrally, but at the end of 1988 the number of items of specified radiotherapy machines in major NHS centres in England by region were as follows:
  189
  purchasing and maintaining radiation machines within the National Health Service either by district, region or generally for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  The costs of purchase and maintenance of equipment are matters for regional and district health authorities within their overall allocation of resources. Limited information on the cost of X-ray equipment and chemicals purchased and of maintenance contracts for X-ray equipment are set out in the published annual accounts of health authorities, as available in the Library.

  Cook-chill Catering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the district health authorities and hospitals which are currently operating cook-chill catering.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that health authorities are not required to submit, on a regular basis, details of the catering systems being used in their hospitals.

  Neomycin
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many claims have been made against health authorities because of deafness alleged to be due to the use of neomycin spray; and how many have been successful.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the bursaries allocated to student nurses under Project 2000 will be administered; and whether they will be administered regionally or centrally;

  (2) what is the anticipated amount of the bursary for a student nurse enrolling when the Project 2000 reform of nurse education is introduced;

  (3) how many bursaries he intends to make available by region under the Project 2000 nursing education reforms; and if he will list them;

  (4) whether, where student nurses are enrolled under Project 2000 with 80 per cent. supernumerary status and a 20 per cent. service contribution, the bursary will cover 100 per cent. of costs.

  Mr. Mellor
  No decisions have yet been made on the level of bursary to be offered to students undertaking project 2000-style training but we hope to make a statement shortly. In deciding the level of bursary we will need to have regard to the level of current student nurse salaries and the existing rules for mandatory student awards.

  Initially, bursaries will be administered by those district health authorities selected to introduce project 2000 courses later this year. Arrangements for the longer term have yet to be determined.

  Funding for project 2000 courses will be provided against carefully costed plans, and the examination of these plans will seek to identify all the necessary additional costs arising as a result of project 2000. It is not our intention in meeting these costs to allocate specific numbers of bursaries or a region by region basis on separately to identify particular aspects of the funding. The number of student nurses will continue to depend on health authorities' future demand for staff and the ability to recruit.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on salaries of ministerial advisers in his Department for each completed year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth oClarke
  I have nothing to add to the information that I gave to the hon. Member in my reply of 16 January at column 35.

  Hospital Services, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of Health (1) if he will make a statement on the future of geriatric services at Sefton general hospital, Liverpool;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of Olive Mount hospital, Liverpool.

  Mr. Mellor
  The planning and development of hospital services in Liverpool is a matter for the Liverpool health authority. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the district chairman for the information he requires.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of beds in the intensive care unit at Liverpool royal hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Mersey regional health authority and Liverpool health authority are presently giving consideration to relocating and expanding the intensive care unit within the Royal Liverpool hospital.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many A-V canal defect operations were carried out on children with Down's syndrome in each of the past five years; and in which hospitals these operations took place.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not identifiable from data collected centrally. Returns of the United Kingdom cardiac surgery register show that 137 A-V canal operations were performed in 1985. We do not have information on the proportion of these operations which involved children with Down's syndrome, or the hospitals in which such operations took place.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children suffering from A-V canal defect died in each of the past five years; and how many of these also had Down's syndrome.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in exactly the form requested. Table 1 shows the number of deaths of children aged 0–14 registered in England and Wales in 1983–87 to which endocardial cushion defects (International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 745.6), which includes A-V canal defect, was assigned as the underlying cause of death.

  For 1985 and 1986 all causes of death were coded, and information on the number of certificates mentioning endocardial cushion defects is consequently available. Table 2 shows, for those deaths registered in 1985 and 1986, how many death certificates for 0–14 year olds contained a mention of ICD 745.6 (irrespective of whether or not it was assigned as the underlying cause of death), and how many of those also contained a mention of Down's syndrome (ICD 758.0). Similar information is not available for the other data years.
  191

  Table 1

  Number of death registrations with endocardial cushion defect1 assigned as underlying cause of death, ages 0–14 years England and Wales, 1983–87

  Year

  Deaths

  1983

  54

  1984

  43

  1985

  50

  21986

  47

  21987

  32

  21988

  318

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) ninth revision code 745·6.

  2 Deaths at ages 28 days and over. No underlying cause of death has been assigned to deaths under 28 days since 1 January 1986.

  3 Provisional, January to September registrations only.

  Table 2

  Number of death registrations containing a mention of endocardial cushion defects (ICD code 745·6) and the number of these also mentioning Down's syndrome (ICD code 758·0) ages 0–14 years, England and Wales 1985–86

  Year

  Total mentions of ICD 745.6

  Number also mentioning ICD 758.0

  1985

  65

  29

  1986

  56

  24

  1 Deaths at ages 28 days and over.

  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health review tribunals were held (i) in the five years preceding the enactment of the Mental Health Act 1983 and (ii) in all subsequent years for which he has information(a) in special hospitals and (b) in other mental hospitals and units.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 1989, c. 413]: The information is not available in the form requested prior to 1983. However the table provides the information for the years 1983–88 and, for the earlier years, shows the total number of tribunals heard in all hospitals.

  Mental health review tribunals. Cases heard

  Year

  Special hospitals

  Other hospitals

  Total

  1978

  n/k

  n/k

  696

  1979

  n/k

  n/k

  780

  1980

  n/k

  n/k

  692

  1981

  n/k

  n/k

  697

  1982

  n/k

  n/k

  876

  1983

  628

  1,313

  1,941

  1984

  625

  1,508

  2,133

  198S

  647

  1,756

  2,403

  1986

  668

  2,161

  2,829

  1987

  691

  2,237

  2,928

  1988

  769

  2,399

  3,168

  Homoeopathy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is made for homoeopathic services within the Liverpool health authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Homoeopathic services for both in-patients and out-patients are provided at Mossley Hill hospital, where 10 in-patient beds are available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much benefit fraud has cost his Department in each of the years since 1979; and how many prosecutions have resulted(a) in the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) in his Department's area covering Nottingham for these purposes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No reliable estimate is available of the cost of social security benefit fraud. The numbers of prosecutions undertaken by the Department for fraudulent claims to social security in(a) Great Britain for each year since 1979–80 and (b) the area covered by the Department's four local offices in Nottingham since 1981–82 are as follows. Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and those for Nottingham prior to 1981–82 are not available.

  (a) Great Britain

  (b) Nottingham

  1979–80

  16,635

  —

  1980–81

  18,801

  —

  1981–82

  14,206

  73

  1982–83

  11,334

  166

  1983–84

  5,997

  127

  1984–85

  6,702

  97

  1985–86

  6,679

  140

  1986–87

  6,603

  132

  1987–88

  7,231

  169

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what involvement his Department has had in the Broxtowe child sex abuse case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In this case the Department disclosed to the police, in confidence, details held about named individuals. This is in accordance with its policy that disclosure may be made to the police in any case which involves serious crime. Also, the Department provided information, including a written statement, to the police in connection with alleged associated offences in which the Department has an interest.

  Mr. Viraj Mendis
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost of social security payments during the period that Viraj Mendis was resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 24 January at column 521.

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school-age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.
  193
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At present no provision for the child care of the pre-school age children of staff is made in this Department, although preliminary discussions on such facilities have taken place.

  The Department's central office at Newcastle operates a scheme of finding day care parents for employees's children. It also runs holiday play schemes for them in the Easter and summer holidays. A holiday play scheme has been organised for the forthcoming Easter holidays for the children of staff working in HQ buildings in central London. Additionally staff working in the Whitehall area can make use of the centrally organised holiday play schemes.

  Child care provision is one of the areas being examined in a review of opportunities available to women employees in the Department. We hope to base any further holiday play schemes on the experience we are gaining.

  The schemes are intended to be self-supporting, but the Department has provided funding to prime them.

  Departmental Offices (Closure)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals to close its offices in London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such proposals.

  Pensions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take urgent steps to ensure that pensions increase in real terms at the same rate as inflation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have fully honoured our pledge to protect the value of the state retirement pension against price increases and shall continue to do so.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the net cost, after taking into account savings in existing benefits, of paying a non-contributory old age pension of £41·15 to each man and woman aged 65 years or over.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Benefits
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received to date either in favour of, or broadly opposed to, his consultative document proposing the replacement of board and lodging payments and personal allowances with housing benefit and income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 23 January at columns 417-18.

  Office

  Principal

  SEO

  HEO

  LOI

  LOII

  AA

  Typing manager

  Typist

  Telephonist

  Security officer

  Messenger

  Total

  Present Staffing

  Doncaster (East) ILO

  1

  1

  7

  40

  78.5

  22.0

  0

  3.0

  1

  1

  1

  155.5

  Doncaster (West) ILO

  1

  1

  9

  50

  94.0

  24.5

  1

  2.5

  0

  2

  1

  186.0

  Mexborough NIO

  0

  0

  1

  4

  10.5

  2.0

  0

  1.0

  0

  0

  0

  18.5

  Staffing in 1984

  Doncaster (East) ILO

  1

  0

  6

  35

  70

  16

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  134

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the payment of mobility allowance to parents with children over two years of age, in line with attendance allowance payments; and if he will estimate the number of children who would be eligible for mobility allowance, if the regulations were changed to allow such payments.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall consider whether mobility allowance should be extended to children below the age of five when we are examining the findings of the surveys undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. We estimate that the reduction of the lower limit to two years of age would enable about 5,000 children to become eligible for the allowance.

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider an extra costs allowance, for payment to disabled persons who incur extra costs as a result of their efforts to overcome their disability, in line with recommendations made in the Social Security advisory committee's report entitled "Benefits for Disabled Persons: a Strategy for Change."

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 19 December 1988 at columns 114–15.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will abandon the six months qualifying period for attendance allowance in respect of persons who are terminally ill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall look at this feature of the attendance allowance scheme when we consider the future of disability benefits in the light of the results of the OPCS disability surveys.

  Benefit Offices (Staff)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the present staffing by grades at the benefit offices in Doncaster and Mexborough; what was the staffing five years ago; and if he will make a statement about the projected operational strategy of these three offices for the future and its effect on the various staff grades.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:
  195

  office

  Principal

  SEO

  HEO

  LOI

  LOII

  AA

  Typing manager

  Typist

  Telephonist

  Security officer

  Messenger

  Total

  Doncaster (West) ILO

  1

  1

  7

  43

  90

  27

  1

  4

  0

  2

  1

  177

  Mexborough NIO

  0

  0

  1

  4

  15

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23

  The regionally calculated estimates of staff savings due to operational strategy in the year April 1990 to March 1991 are as follows. At this stage they are subject to change and as yet we cannot give the grades involved:

  Number

  Doncaster East ILO

  23·520

  Doncaster West ILO

  29·170

  Mexborough NIO

  00·674

  Abbreviations:

  ILO = Integrated Local Office.

  NIO = National Insurance Office.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the position of disabled people facing a higher cost of living as a consequence of their disability.

  Mr. Scott
  In the period up to July 1989 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is publishing a series of reports on the findings of the surveys of disability in Great Britain carried out between 1985 and 1988. Two reports have already been published covering the prevalence of disability amongs adults and the financial circumstances of disabled adults in private households. Four more reports will follow. Taken together, the six reports will bring together the most comprehensive and detailed information ever collected about disabled people in this country.

  I have explained that we will wait until all the results of these surveys are available before reaching any conclusion as to whether there are better ways of providing help for disabled people.

  Departmental Correspondence
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if will list in the Official Report the number of his Department's letters (Form No. CH (A) 1702 REV) sent in each region of the United Kingdom; what is his Department's existing budget for this mailing campaign; how many such messages are planned to be sent in future; which benefits other than child benefit will receive the same attention in this way; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Forms CH(A) 1702 REV are issued centrally to recipients of child benefit. Information is not available of numbers sent by region, but a total of some 3·6 million have been issued. No specific budget is allocated to promoting automated credit transfer and the costs are met from the social security publicity budget of £12·77 million for 1988–89. The issue of similar letters to all retirement pensioners who were not already paid by automated credit transfer has been completed and the child benefit exercise is due to finish in April 1989. We have no current plans to extend the issue of these letters to other beneficiaries.

  Ministerial Advisers (Salaries)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure on salaries of ministerial advisers in his Department for each completed year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  I have nothing to add to the information which I gave to the hon. Member in my reply on 16 January at column 45.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what income is taken into account in assessing a person's right to a rebate of poll tax.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A person who expects to be liable for a personal community charge or for collective community charge contributions in Scotland may claim housing benefit in the form of community charge rebate from the appropriate authority. In assessing his entitlement to rebate, the authority will calculate his income in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Regulations 1988. All earned and unearned income is taken into account, except where the regulations provide for all or part of it to be disregarded. The rules for the calculation of income are carried forward unchanged from the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  East Midlands
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment his Department has made of the advantages and disadvantages for trade and industry in the east midlands arising from(a) the establishment or failure to establish a rail freight interchange in the east
  midlands and (b) the advent of 1992 and the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Atkins
  My officials have extensive contact with industry and commerce in the east midlands on all matters affecting the region's economic development, including those related to transport infrastructure, which are discussed regularly with the Department of Transport.

  Supermarket Profits
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer supermarket profit levels to(a) the Office of Fair Trading or (b) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  No. It falls to the Director General of Fair Trading to monitor commercial activities under the competition legislation for which he is responsible. He published a review of developments in competition in retailing in June 1985, and continues to keep the matter under close review. If the hon. Member has evidence to suggest that supermarket profit levels indicate that
  197
  competition in that particular market is being restricted or distorted, he should bring it to the attention of the director general.

  Special Steels (Spain)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the inter-industry agreement on special steels from Spain, referred to in his answer of 27 April 1988,Official Report, column 171, has now ended.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am informed that, following completion of the transitional arrangements for steel on Spain's accession to the European Community, the inter-industry agreement on special steels has ended.

  "Releasing Enterprise"
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the rolling programme of deregulation reviews referred to in the White Paper, "Releasing Enterprise", has been determined.

  Mr. Maude
  I am announcing today details of the first rolling programme of deregulation reviews to be carried out by Government Departments. This carries forward commitments undertaken in the Government's recent White Paper "Releasing Enterprise" (Cm 512) which was published in November 1988.

  We regard this programme of reviews as essential to keep a check on existing requirements or regulations which, although they may have seemed reasonable at the time, have become outdated, over-burdensome or simply unnecessary.

  Together with the existing mechanisms we have in place for new legislation, we hope to be able to free enterprise from unnecessary Government interference.

  Each year, Departments will review at least one area of their work, with an emphasis on consultation, particularly with business, at all stages. Where possible, business expertise will be brought in to assist.

  The results of this programme will be reported to Parliament once it has been completed.

  The first programme of deregulation is as follows:

  Enterprise and Deregulation Unit

  (i) Business Licensing
  Review of the administration of business licences.

  (ii) Fire and building review
  Review of overlap of building control and fire regulations, the way the legislation is implemented and the requirements for consistent enforcement.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  (i) Compulsory dipping of sheep against sheep scab This will consider the burden to farmers and possible alternatives to compulsory dipping while maintaining adequate control over the disease.

  (ii) Enforcement of fruit and vegetable marketing standards
  Review of the EC regulations laying down marketing standards for fruit and vegetables and their impact on United Kingdom traders.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  (i) VAT second-hand schemes
  VAT is paid on the margin between the selling and purchase price with second-hand schemes. The review will examine ways of reducing the record-keeping requirements.

  198

  (ii) Export data capture
  The review is to examine increasing direct trader input of export data in customs computers to bring it into line with import systems.

  Department of Employment and the Home Office

  (i) Work permit scheme
  To ensure that the rules and operation of the scheme enable business to hire overseas non-EC staff with the minimum regulation required to safeguard the employment of resident labour and for immigration control.

  Health and Safety Executive

  (i) Factories Act section 139
  To review the need for employers to post copies of health and safety regulations or notices at workplaces, with a view to amendment or repeal of section 139 of the Factories Act 1961.

  Department of the Environment

  (i) Use Classes Order part II
  To review the Special Industrial Use Classes which are five groups of industries, eg chemicals, smelting and other metal treatment and animal by-products. Because of the processes involved these create particular environmental problems and the review will be done with a view to rationalisation of the Use Classes Order.

  Department of Health

  (i) NHS standard conditions of contract
  To overhaul Health Authority procedures for tendering and contracting, with particular reference to extending competition and best procurement practices.

  (ii) NHS supplies
  To streamline the NHS approved supplier/ contractor system under which at present each regional NHS Authority conducts its own separate vetting and appraisal.

  Home Office

  (i) Data Protection Act
  Review of implementation of the Data Protection Act 1984, with particular regard to the impact on data users of the registration requirements.

  (ii) Business licences
  Review of the administration of the business licences for which the Home Office is responsible.

  Inland Revenue

  (i) Pay as you earn communications with employers Full scrutiny-style review of all communications between the Inland Revenue and business about PAYE.

  Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  (i) Forms
  To identify the means of reducing the burden of Government forms on business and make recommendations.

  Department of Social Security

  (i) Inquiries of business
  To simplify the way in which social security information is obtained from employers, and drop outdated requirements.

  Department of Transport

  (i) HGV and PSV operator licensing
  To consider the scope for reducing the burden imposed by operator licensing on goods and passenger vehicle operators.

  Department of Trade and Industry

  (i) Steel scrap export licensing

  (a) Ferrous Scrap: to review the need for export licences for all grades of steel and non-alloy scrap.

  199

  (b) Control of Stainless Steel and High Alloy Scrap Exports: to review the continuing need for an early 1980s agreement between DTI and the steel industry giving BSC first refusal on all supplies.

  (ii) Regional selective assistance
  To consider the possibility of a shortened and simplified offer letter for smaller cases and the extent to which payment and monitoring procedures can be simplified.

  (iii) Insurance
  To review the data collection requirements of this area with a view to eliminating those which are unnecessary while making the essential compliance, collection and use of data as cost effective as possible.

  (iv) Copper scrap quotas
  To prepare the case for the removal of the annual quota imposed by the EC on copper exports.

  (v) Export procedures review implementation (with Customs and Excise and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

  To implement the recommendations of the enterprise and deregulation unit's export procedures review.

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the areas of Yorkshire which he has submitted for consideration to the European Commission under its review of the European Economic Community's structural funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: I have recommended the Commission to select for the new objective 2 of the funds the whole of South Yorkshire; the parts of Middlesbrough and Darlington travel-to-work areas that are in north Yorkshire; and the Bradford city, Kirklees borough, Leeds city and Wakefield city metropolitan districts in West Yorkshire.

  I should have liked to recommend the Whitby TTWA in North Yorkshire, but the terms of article 9 of the Council regulation (EEC) No. 2025/88 do not qualify for consideration.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parole
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Loyalist and Republican prisoners in Northern Ireland received compassionate parole during the last three years; and what was the average length of parole for each category.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  During the last three years compassionate home leave was granted on 340 occasions to both determinate and indeterminate sentence prisoners. Based on their believed paramilitary affiliation, 69 were Loyalist prisoners for an average period of 11·5 hours, 136 Republican prisoners for an averge period of 12·2 hours, and 135 prisoners with no believed paramilitary affiliation for an average period of 14·6 hours. The length of a period of compassionate home leave in any individual case depends upon a number of factors, including the distance a prisoner has to travel and the mode of travel.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply to the hon.
  200
  Member for Kingston upon Hull, North on 10 January, Official Report, column 502, whether mouth samples taken for the purposes of DNA testing by a swab between the lip and the gum yielded sufficient material to carry out valid DNA profiles in all cases.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1989]: Research work undertaken at the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory has proved that a mouth swab taken from the area between the lip and gum can yield sufficient DNA material for profiling purposes. However, none of the mouth samples taken for DNA profiling has been analysed so far.

  Anthony O'Doherty
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to allegations made at the trial of Sergeant Charles McCormick that Anthony O'Doherty had been supplied with weapons by the security forces; what inquiries have been carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 19 December 1988]: The allegations made at the trial of Sergeant Charles McCormick that Anthony O'Doherty had been supplied with weapons by the security forces were fully investigated by the police and their findings reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions who directed that there should be no prosecution.

  I regret the delay in obtaining this information for the hon. Member.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tourists visited Northern Ireland in each of the years 1983 to 1988(a) from European countries, and (b) from North America.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]: The information requested for each of the years 1983 to 1987 is given in the table. Tourist numbers for 1988 are not yet available.

  Tourist numbers

  Thousands

  European Countries

  Year

  Including1

  Excluding1

  North America

  1983

  796

  29

  52

  1984

  847

  30

  43

  1985

  778

  28

  63

  1986

  750

  35

  47

  1987

  860

  33

  57

  1 Tourists from Great Britain and Republic of Ireland.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual total of meat imports into Northern Ireland via the overland route from the Republic.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 26 January 1989]: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise statistics sources show that in 1987 imports of meat from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland totalled 108,200 tonnes.

  House Searches
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many houses were searched in Northern Ireland by the Army, police or the Ulster Defence Regiment under(a) the Emergency Provisions Act and (b) the Prevention of Terrorism Act during 1988; and in how many house searches a warrant was sought or obtained.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 27 January 1989]: Statistics are not available in respect of searches under sections 11, 13, 14 and 17 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, or under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. During the first nine months of 1988 a total of 2,899 premises in Northern Ireland were searched by the police and 2,712 by the Army under section 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. These figures include both occupied and unoccupied premises. Warrants are not required for such searches.

ENVIRONMENT

  Southwark Urban Development Area
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has of the number of firms active in the Southwark urban development area in 1980, the number of people they employed and whether the employees lived in(a) Southwark and (b) the other dockland boroughs; and if he has comparable information for the latest available date.

  Mr. Trippier
  The numbers of employing establishments and employees in the Southwark part of the UDA in 1981 and 1987 were as follows:

  1981

  1987

  Employing Establishments

  285

  358

  Employers

  5,824

  8,732

  LDDC has no data for 1980; and no place of residence information for 1981. Data for 1987 will be available shortly and I will write to the hon. Member at that time.

  Tobacco Dock
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct the London Docklands Development Corporation to take steps to ensure that the shops to open in the spring at Tobacco dock employ local labour.

  Mr. Trippier
  No, but I understand that the operators have recruited locally and are actively encouraging shop tenants to do so.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of grant given by his Department to housing associations to encourage the building of disabled persons' housing units.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held by the Department. The Housing Corporation is responsible for the allocation of its capital programme to housing 202
  associations and types of scheme, within the broad framework agreed annually by Ministers. I have therefore asked the Chairman of the Housing Corporation to respond to the hon. Member direct.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to the reply of 10 November 1988, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe,Official Report, column 273, if he will make a statement on the outcome so far of his Department's consideration of the Prince of Wales advisory group on disability entitled "Living Options Lottery" and, in particular, about the action he will be taking in regard to its findings.

  Mr. Trippier
  The report is a useful contribution to current thinking and planning on disability issues. We continue to encourage housing providers to look at ways in which they can respond more effectively to the needs and wishes of people with disabilities.

  Agricultural Dwellings
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce rules to allow local authorities to tie planning permission for erection of an agricultural dwelling to a specific farm and area of land.

  Mr. Chope
  We are reviewing our planning guidance on agricultural dwellings and occupancy conditions in the light of our policies for diversification of the rural economy.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have been granted exemption for provision of a gipsy site under the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. Section 6(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 which provided for exemption was repealed by section 173 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Swimming Pools (Safety)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department issues to the owners or operators of swimming pools concerning the safety of water slides, water chutes and similar apparatus.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Health and Safety Commission and the Sports Council published a joint guidance booklet for owners and operators of swimming pools entitled "Safety in Swimming Pools" in 1988. My Department was consulted when the guidance was being drafted and fully endorses its contents.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 47 water treatment plants in the United Kingdom producing drinking water whose aluminium content is above European Economic Community limits; by how much each treatment plant is in excess of these limits; and if he will make a statement in respect of excess aluminium sulphate in drinking water and any connection with the brain disorder, Alzheimer's disease.
  203
  Mr. Moynihan
  The 43 areas where the Department has granted derogations under article 9 of the EC drinking water directive or has applied to the European Commission under article 20 for a further period of time in order to comply with the aluminium standard are as follows:

  Severn-Trent Water Authority

  Parts of North Warwickshire, Coventry and Nuneaton

  Parts of Charnwood, Hinckley and Bosworth

  Parts of Stroud District Council area

  Part of Montgomery

  South West Water Authority

  Parishes of Seaton and Beer

  Areas supplied from Tottiford treatment works

  Areas supplied from Prewley treatment works

  Bideford

  College supply zone—Falmouth and Penrhyn

  Watercombe supply zone

  Higher parts of Penzance

  Launceston and Callington areas

  Bodmin and Wadebridge areas

  Princetown

  Chagford Crediton hamlets

  North West Water Authority

  Parts of Sefton MB

  Parts of Stockport MB

  Parts of Bolton MB

  Parts of Tameside MB

  Parts of Oldham MB

  Parts of Carlisle District

  Parts of Eden District

  Parts of Lancaster Borough

  Parts of Ribble Valley District

  Yorkshire Water Authority

  South East Sheffield

  Central Sheffield

  Parts of West Barnsley (2 supplies)

  South West Sheffield

  Thornton supply area (West Bradford)

  Area east of Thirsk

  Addingham

  Parts of Dewsbury, Mirfield and Huddersfield

  Part of north Bradford

  Huddersfield, Holmbridge and Holmstyles area

  Parts of Huddersfield

  Rural area of Keighley

  Reva supply area, Rombalds

  Parts of Huddersfield

  Rural areas west and south of Halifax (2 supplies)

  Northern area of Halifax

  Otley

  Programmes of improvement are in hand to ensure that all supplies will comply with the aluminium standard in the directive as soon as possible.

  Information as to how much each treatment plant exceeds the aluminium standard in the EC directive is not held centrally. However, in accordance with the terms of the directive the Department granted derogations (exemptions) where the aluminium is naturally occurring and applied to the Commission for delays where it is used in the treatment process up to limits which have been agreed with medical advisers.

  The Department of Health's committee on medical aspects of the contamination of air, soil and water has concluded that it has not been established that a reduction in the aluminium intake of the general population would be likely to reduce the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. It considered that the associations between Alzheimer's disease and aluminium concentrations in drinking water, suggested by recent studies in Norway and the United Kingdom, were too tentative to justify changes in the use
  204
  of aluminum sulphate in water treatment. Further research is important, particularly on the bioavailability of aluminium from all sources.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his latest estimate of the level of community charge in each London borough on 1 April 1990 in relation to the current average burden of rates per adult in each London borough, assuming no significant changes in levels of expenditure between the current time and 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Glimmer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermonsdey (Mr. Hughes) on 15 December 1988 Official Report, column 726, regarding future community charge levels.

  Conservation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 1 December 1988,Official Report, column 365, if he will make a statement on the aspects of his Department's programmes for conserving the environment which go wider than what can be achieved through further legislation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Many of the initiatives that we are taking in the environmental field do not require further legislation. They include steps to combat air pollution by cleaning up emissions from power station; and motor vehicles; implementing the programme of action arising from the second North sea conference; investing in research into greenhouse gases and their effects; and pressing both nationally and internationally for a reduction in the use of chlorofluorocarbons in order to protect the ozone layer.

  Heritage Conservation
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from English Heritage or the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments on the effects of the new agricultural policies being adopted by the Government in response to recent European Community directives, in relation to the future of archaeology in the upland and lowland regions of the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives advice from English Heritage regularly on matters affecting ancient monuments and archaeology. English Heritage themselves maintain contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on all such matters. We are aware of the opportunities under EC directives to take agricultural land out of production and that these can sometimes help indirectly to safeguard archaeological sites on agricultural land. Alternative land use as such is however only one approach. There is a growing awareness of the importance of archaeology in the countryside and English Heritage are closely in touch with countryside interests. A tangible result of their efforts are the positive management agreements into which English Heritage enter with land owners for the safeguarding of archaeological sites.
  205
  We are also aware of the report published by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England and the Council for British Archaeology on the Archaeology of the Uplands in 1987. English Heritage recently published a similar document which explains some of the ways in which monuments in the countryside (including upland and lowland areas) can be preserved and maintained.

  Ministerial Advisers (Salaries)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure on salaries of ministerial advisers in his Department for each completed year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The following special advisers have been employed in my Department since 1979:T. Baron—Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment on housing issues. 1 October 1979 to 31 March 1980. Seconded from another employer.
  Sir Robert Cooke—Special Adviser to the Secretary of State on the Palace of Westminster, the Parliamentary Estate and other Government Buildings. 1 December 1979 to 6 January 1987. Paid directly.
  E. Berman—Special Adviser to the Secretary of State on inner city matters. 4 October 1982 to 4 July 1983. Paid directly.
  C. G. Mockler—Special (political) Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment. 18 July 1983 to 30 April 1985. Paid directly.
  A. Tyrie—Special (political) Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment. 29 April 1985 to 3 September 1985. Paid directly.
  P. R. C. Davis—Special (political) Adviser to the Minister for Local Government. 1 October 1984 to 3 September 1985. Special (political) Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment. 4 September 1985 to 31 January 1986. Paid directly.
  A. R. Kerpel—Special (political) Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment. 3 February 1986 to 21 May 1986. Paid directly.
  D. A. Coleman—Special (political) Adviser to the Hon. William Waldegrave and Mr. John Patten. 16 September 1985 to 12 June 1987. Paid directly.
  P. J. Rock—Special (political) Adviser to Mr. M. Howard and the Hon. William Waldegrave from 13 July 1987 to 25 July 1988. Special (political) Adviser to Mr. M. Howard and the Right Hon. J. Selwyn Gummer. 26 July 1988 to date. Paid directly.
  Mrs. K. C. Ramsay—Special (political) Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment. 22 May 1986 to 17 May 1987. 15 June 1987 to date. Paid directly.
  It is not the practice to give information which would reveal the salaries of special advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential.

  Sporting Events (Tickets)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the sale of black market tickets at major sporting events.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand the hon. Member's concern about the sale of black market tickets. In particular, I am concerned about the damage that such ticket sales for major football matches can do to the efforts of the police and clubs to segregate rival fans effectively. However, it is not yet clear that a practicable and enforceable legal answer to this problem can be found. It way well be that what is needed is tighter control by the organisers of sporting events over the distribution of tickets and the imposition of sanctions against those found abusing those controls. Following a report from the chief 206
  trading standards officer of Liverpool, difficulties over the allocation of tickets for last year's FA cup final have been referred to the Football Association by the Office of Fair Trading. I understand the OFT are awaiting a detailed response from the FA.

  Ex-GLC Housing (Somerset)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will inquire of the Housing Corporation the reasons why it recommended that ownerships of the former Greater London Council seaside and country homes in Taunton should pass from the North British housing association to the Knightstone housing association of Weston-super-Mare sites, then to the Redland housing association of Bristol.

  Mr. Trippier
  Any proposal by NBHA to dispose of any of the seaside and country homes would require the Housing Corporation's consent.

  House Conditions (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in Liverpool are without basic amenities; and what percentage(a) of the total housing stock, and (b) the private rented sector fall into this category.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local authorities report estimates of the number of dwellings lacking one or more basic amenities in their annual housing investment programme returns. These do not distinguish between rented and owner-occupied dwellings in the private sector. A copy of Liverpool's 1988 return (HIP1) is in the Library.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many house improvement grants were issued in Liverpool over the past year.

  Mr. Trippier
  Numbers of renovation grants paid to private owners and tenants by local authority area, for the first half of 1988, appear in table 4 of "Local Housing Statistics" No. 87. A copy is available in the Library. A total of 323 grants were reported paid in the September quarter of 1988.

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations from Leicester city council indicating dissatisfaction as to the amount of central Government grants to the council.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am not aware of any recent representations relating to grants for which DOE is responsible.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he now proposes to reduce the amount of chlorofluorocarbons in aerosol propellants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The British aerosol industry expects to phase out the non-essential use of chlorofluorocarbons as propellants on a voluntary basis by the end of 1989.

  Property Services Agency (Funding)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limit on the Property Services Agency's civil vote and also to the running cost limit for 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XX, vote 19, will be increased by £71·152 million from £2,000 to £71·154 million. The increases are needed to finance the acquisition of freehold office accommodation and the internal restructuring of the agency ahead of fully commercial operation in 1993. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and therefore will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  In addition, PSA's civil running cost limit is being increased by a net £3·599 million to £143·678 million to cover expenditure on internal restructuring. This increase includes an offsetting reduction of £1,000 to meet corresponding increase in the running cost limit of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) for the transfer of costs for recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 competition 1988.

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of his Department's employees; what child care provision, for school holiday or after school care, is provided for employees' children aged five years and over; and what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Ridley
  The experimental child care scheme first held at the Cardington residential training centre in August 1987 is being repeated this year. The Department is considering what scope there is for further provision without continuing subsidy.

  New Towns
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a copy of the recent 7(1) submissions from Warrington and Runcorn development corporation affecting Appleton Cross and Grappenhall Heys available to the hon. Member for Warrington, South.
  208
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: I have not yet received section 7(1) submissions under the New Towns Act 1981 from Warrington and Runcorn development corporation relating to the areas to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to reject all 7(1) submissions from new towns in the last nine months of their existence.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: No. The Government's objectives for the remaining new town development corporations require section 7(1) powers under the New Towns Act 1981 to be exercised until the corporations' proposed wind-up dates.

  Aluminium
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is being financed by his Department into aluminium in water and in man-made milk products; and whether any guidance on safe limits has been issued.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: My Department has not funded research specifically into aluminium in water although the water industry is carrying out research into the use of aluminium as a coagulant.

  Guidance on safe limits has not been issued. However., the EC drinking water directive sets a standard of 200 micrograms of aluminium per litre in drinking water. Responsibility for research into aluminium in milk products lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Water
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Southern water authority is fully meeting its obligations under European Community directives; what expenditure is required to remedy any deficiencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: In general, Southern water authority meets its obligations under the EC directives relating to water quality.

  Not all the identified bathing waters comply at present with the bathing water directive and we are discussing with the authority its investment plans to bring the remainder up to the required standard.

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

LORD SAINSBURY OF PRESTON CANDOVER
Sir John Davan Sainsbury, Knight, having been created Baron Sainsbury of Preston Candover, of Preston Candover in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was,in this robes, introduced between the Lord Sainsbury and the Lord Prior.

Chemical Weapons
2.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in reaching an up-to-date and effective international agreement on the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the use of chemical weapons in war is already banned under the 1925 Geneva Protocol to which over 120 states, including the United Kingdom, are party. Negotiations aimed at achieving a global, comprehensive and verifiable ban on the development, production and possession as well as use of chemical weapons continue at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. Progress has been made, but complex issues remain to be resolved particularly concerning verification.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Although reports of the recent international meetings are encouraging, are the Government optimistic about verification provisions being included in any agreement when it appears that factories producing chemical weapons can easily be disguised as ordinary manufacturing plant?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point to the difficult issues involved in the verification of a chemical weapons ban. Speaking for myself, I believe that no such verification regime is likely to be effective if it does not include a provision for challenge inspection. I believe that that is also the view of the Government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say what will be the effect of the successful conclusion of the recent Paris conference on the Geneva talks on chemical weapons which have continued for the past 14 years?
With reference to the 1925 protocol referred to by the noble Lord in his Answer, can he say what action the Government would support if a nation was in breach of that protocol, as some nations are alleged
986
to be? Would Her Majesty's Government be in favour of taking sanctions against such a country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a difficult question. As the noble Lord will understand, although there are a number of allegations about the use of weapons which may be in breach of the convention, very few have been proven. One of the benefits from the recent Paris conference was that 10 more nations have indicated their intention to adhere to the 1925 protocol, for all its imperfections.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that full reply. With regard to the first part, does he not agree that the case of using chemical weapons was proven beyond doubt against Iraq in relation to the recent war with Iran and in relation to the Kurds?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware of the allegations to which the noble Lord has referred. I must agree that there is powerful circumstantial evidence to support them. However, they are denied by the country concerned and I understand that the Geneva Protocol does not make provision for the type of sanctions which the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is very unusual these days that anyone says anything nice about Britain? However, is it not time to put on the record that Britain neither makes chemical weapons nor has a stockpile of them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Of course, it is the case that the United Kingdom abandoned its chemical weapons capability many years ago.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, in the case of Iraq, is it not true that casualties who were clearly identified as suffering from the effects of chemical weapons were examined by impartial doctors from other countries and that the charges are proved to the hilt?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the case that we saw some casualties from Iraq who, it was alleged, were suffering from the effects of chemical weapons. It is very difficult to be certain in such cases; nevertheless, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the circumstantial evidence was considerable.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what evidence there is, contrary to the evidence of the doctors, that it was not chemical weapons which were used against these people?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I recall it, there was no doubt about the cause of the injuries concerned; namely, the presence of certain chemicals. However, whether those chemicals came to those people in contravention of the 1925 protocol is another matter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of the gravity of the allegations against Iraq, should there

987
not be an appropriate international inquiry? If what is alleged is true, it is outrageous and should be condemned internationally.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the difficulty is that the 1925 protocol, as I have said, is a very imperfect instrument for these purposes. Agreed, as it was, so long ago in very different circumstances, as I understand it, it provides only for prohibition of the use of chemical weapons between contracting parties to the protocol. It is not clear that that is what happened in this case. For example, I am not entirely certain that the Kurds were contracting parties to the protocol. Of course, that is not to say that we do not deplore the use of chemical weapons wherever it may occur.

The Design Centre
2.56 p.m.
Lord Reilly Lord Reilly asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to take any action over the proposal to privatise the Design Centre.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, as a member of the Design Council the noble Lord, Lord Reilly, will know that the council is an independent body to which the Design Centre premises are leased. In the circumstances a decision on the proposal to privatise the Design Centre is one for the council alone to take.
Lord Reilly: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I believe that I should declare an interest. For many years—this was some time ago—I was a director of the Design Council. At that time I should have been very pleased by the Answer. However, I gather that the Design Council not only receives a much larger grant in aid now than it did but that it is also much more dependent on the goodwill of the DTI. I therefore ask the Government to reveal a little more about its relationship with the Design Council.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry supports the Design Council at around £6 million a year. However, that is about half of the council's income which also comprises income from differing activities; namely, from contract work and sponsorship. The decision to close the shop and to privatise it is for the Design Council alone. It has recently decided that its main objectives should be to promote better attention to design by industry and to ensure that design is adequately covered by all levels of education. It felt that the maintenance of the design shop was detracting from those activities.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend make clear on behalf of the Government that they fully appreciate the invaluable work which has been done by the council and very particularly the example shown by the noble Lord who asked the Question?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes, I am happy to assure my noble friend that the Government are very well aware of the good work which has been done by the Design Council. However, all those in the design sphere today, and it is a billion pounds a year activity, will pay testimony to the way in which the Government have supported design throughout this decade. I suspect that we have done more for design than any government previously through our recognition of its importance in helping to restore British industry.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, will the Minister agree that over the years the Design Council has played a very important part in trade promotion? If that part of the council's activities is to cease, it will leave London as the only major capital city in the world without a permanent standing exhibition of the best of its products. Can the Minister assure us that his department will look favourably upon and encourage alternative arrangements to promote British exports in such ways?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend tells me, but it seems to me that the best way to help to expand British exports is by having British manufactured goods which are properly designed, properly made, sold at the right price and delivered on time. Design is a very important element in that. The Design Council, which is charged with the conduct of its work, has decided that the retailing and marketing activities—the Design Centre label scheme—has caused confusion and does not help in carrying out its main activities. It considers its main activities to be promoting better attention to design by industry and covering that at all levels of education. Those are the sort of judgments which it is best placed to make.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I agree that it is vitally important to encourage first-class British design throughout British industry. Given that the Design Centre was once a marvellous showcase for the best of British design, can the noble Lord say why the conclusion has been reached that we do not need such a showcase? Can he offer your Lordships any explanation as to why we no longer need a design centre?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we have a design centre whose work is continuing. The Design Council has decided that it does not require a shop. It is no good having one centre of excellence to show off products in the centre of London. The council has decided quite rightly that good design belongs out in industry enabling British products to be properly designed and so sell all the better.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is not an anwer to my question. Simply to say that it is no good is not an explanation of why other nations feel that such showcases are so important and why, to repeat the point, in its heyday the Design Council gave enormous leadership not only to industry but to many of us as consumers by educating us into design. I should still like an explanation of why the shop is not needed any more.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is telling me that in its heyday in the 1960s and 1970s the Design Council did such a good job. When I go round the world now I hear nothing but congratulations to British industry for having got out of the time of the 1960s and 1970s when design and quality were so poor. Today we are seeing a resurgence of British industry. It is about time that Ministers left industry to get on with its job, and that is precisely what we are doing.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several of us go round the world, visiting other countries, and for many generations we have been proud of the work of the Design Council and the way that British design has led us, and not just at the present time?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was not referring to the work of the British Design Council but to the quality of design which was evident in British goods exported in the 1960s and 1970s. If the noble Lord is not aware of that, then he has not travelled as extensively as I know he has.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the 1960s and 1970s, when many of us were engaged in industry, British industry was highly successful in many parts of the world? Its share of world trade was considerably greater than it is now. The balance of trade on manufactures was very positive. While I am not arguing with my noble friend about the great improvements in quality and efficiency in the past few years, is it really helpful to denigrate what was done in the past? That was greatly helped, as I and many others know, by the leadership given within the Design Council by the noble Lord who asked the Question and by the display of the results of that leadership, which was a symbol—in fact, more than a symbol—in the pursuit of better design throughout manufacturing industry in Britain and in the world, which was much enjoyed by many people all over the world.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must assure my noble friend and noble Lords opposite that they should not confuse the two matters. No government have been more to the fore than the present one in promoting design and in bringing home to industry the necessity for design. It is not merely myself as a member of that Government who is saying so: it is repeated to me by all those concerned with design.
However, we are talking about a shop in the middle of the Design Centre—a centre which will continue to exist—a shop which sells articles chosen for their design value. It is much better that we bring to industry itself, and indeed to all levels of education, the real value of design, which includes much more than the appearance of objects so that British industry as a whole will benefit.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to set aside his prejudices for a while, listen to the excellent factual intervention of his noble friend and keep the shop open?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition but I will not interfere with the Design Council. The Design Council, under the leadership of Sir Simon Hornby, is well equipped to decide the best way to promote good design in this country. We should leave it that way. Surely it is not for people like me to tell the Design Centre how to do its job.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the design and advisory service will continue to be available to industry? Further, will the grant-in-aid to the Design Council continue at its present level in real terms in the next financial year?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, our support for the Design Council continues unabated. In this Question we are referring to a small part of the Design Council and considering whether it feels that the best use of that space in a valuable part of London is to be achieved by running a shop. It is a matter for the Design Council. The work of the Design Council continues. The exhibition continues. We are talking now merely about a shop.

London Traffic Flow: Study
3.4 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the terms of reference given to Marcial Echenique and Partners in respect of the survey of traffic flow in the London area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Marcial Echenique has been engaged by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to pursue the possibility of developing a computer model in connection with the London Assessment Studies.
The model will be used in the assessment of options to take account of the interaction between transport and a wide range of factors such as location of employment, support services and residential and leisure facilities.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the company still does not know what the Government intend it to test? Is he further aware that the company has had no response from the Government as to what is to be tested on the computer? Before that information is given, will this House have an opportunity to hear the details of the Government's recommendations for testing? Will that include the examination of the present delays caused by using one-man operated buses in London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord says that the company does not know what it has been asked to do. It has already produced a preliminary report and we expect the full report to be produced in a few months' time.

991
The model will be used to test the interaction between land use and transportation against a background of present government policies. The potential for sensitivity testing and for varying these policies has not yet been evaluated. Once the model has been built, that potential can be better assessed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that this will be the ninth study of transport in London which has been commissioned and either reported upon or is in the process of being reported upon? 1 have information about six road reports which have been commissioned and two rail studies which have been commissioned. Although the Secretary of State for Transport says that he does not want a central scheme for transport but wants to be more flexible, does not that mean looking piecemeal at the problem in London? If the reports are to be considered together, it means that only the Secretary of State and his department will be making decisions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware of the four London assessment studies covering different areas of London and the improvements that might or might not be made in those areas. This present study is very much supplemental to those. It is using brand new technology and has not previously been tried on this scale. We feel that it might be useful, but we shall not know until we have the information produced. Having obtained that, it will be a question of whether it can be integrated into the other assessment studies. It is not separate from them.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the problems of traffic and movement in London do not arise from the shortage of studies but from the fact that the division and control of transport in London between three authorities—the police, the department and the local authorities—makes it impossible to look at the problems of London as a whole? Does not the Minister think that the time is long overdue to study not simply the problem but the possibility of having a single authority for London transport?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are straying somewhat from the Question on the Order Paper, which relates purely to this study being carried out by one company. However, in general terms, I believe I answered a Question on this subject not long ago. We have had single authorities in the past. They have not produced an integrated London transport policy and we do not want to repeat those mistakes.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, do the terms of reference—the subject of this Question—include investigating better collaboration between statutory authorities which have the rightto make holes in the streets and then fill them up again? My street has been taken to pieces at least six times in the past year. As one part of the traffic flow, I just am not flowing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Earl, but, no, this study is to discover
992
what traffic is attracted to an area when new transport infrastructure is produced.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me—my Question deals with the whole terms of reference of this particular firm—that what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said is perfectly true and seems to agree with the concept that in studying the traffic problems of London one must also study the whole aspect of movement and congestion in London, including land use?
The Minister said that he was surprised to be told that the firm had not yet been told of the Government's intentions. I quote from a letter that I received last week from the company concerned:
"The set of policies to be tested has still to be decided by the department."
That is contrary to what the Minister said. Can he now have a word with his advisers? If they are going to brief him they should at least brief him correctly.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in his original Question the noble Lord asked me what policies are set for the model to test. I replied to that Question. I do not believe that there is anything that I can add to that now.

Manufactured Goods: UK Share of Trade
3.10 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom's share by volume of world trade in manufacturing industries is increasing or decreasing.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Autumn Statement forecast shows that the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactures has changed little since 1981, after decades of decline.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Secretary of State for that reply. Can he tell the House how he views the recent report of Mr. Henry Neuburger, which has been submitted to the Leader of the Opposition in another place, particularly as regards the comment on the future of manufacturing industry in 1992?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was puzzled by that statement. From looking at the actual facts I find that since this decade began British manufacturing industry has increased productivity at a rate greater than that of any nation in the world including Japan. Our manufactured exports continue to increase the whole time; and this country is being recognised internationally as the right environment for manufacturing industry. I believe that 1992 will present a great opportunity for manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom and not be the subject of such doom and gloom, as that forecast seems to suppose.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the figures issued by

993
his own department on Friday last, there is a deficit in our visible trade of over £20 billion, of which no less than £17 billion is in relation to manufactured goods? Is the noble Lord further aware that he cannot ride away with the suggestion that most of this is comprised of capital goods because they occupied only 17 per cent. of our imports in 1988? Does the noble Lord believe that he can continue to gloss over this whole question indefinitely?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. What the noble Lord describes as a gloss I would describe as a repetition of the facts. It is true that we have adeficit on manufactured goods. I was recently shown the report of a Professor Supple who declared that not since 1800 has the visibles sector been in credit. Well over 100 years ago the nation was concerned about the apparent deficit in visibles and the increase in invisibles. In important sector after important sector, like aerospace, radio and electronic capital goods, the iron and steel industry, basic electrical equipment, electrical instruments and control systems, the nation still runs at a surplus. It is important that the nation itself should be prosperous and that it should be seen to have the right environment. That is neither a matter for government Ministers nor, with the greatest respect, for those opposite who form that view. The outside world is forming that view as we have seen in the past few days.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the most recent issue of the Economist shows that this country ranks sixth in terms of increased industrial production among the 13 industrial nations quoted? Does the noble Lord not agree that the boasted increase in industrial production to which he so frequently calls our attention is an increase from an extremely low base? Is it not correct that it is always much easier to get an increase from a low base than from a high base? Will the Minister not agree that, bearing in mind those two facts and the statement he has made this afternoon, there has been no UK share increase in the volume of trade in industry and that he is somewhat overdoing his enthusiasm concerning improvements in the British economy?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I understand and I appreciate everything that the noble Baroness has said. Before we talk too much of the low base of the United Kingdom, it is well to remember that we still export more manufactured goods per capita than Japan. The famed disappearance of the industrial base should be looked at in that light.
When I look at the value share of world trade in manufactured goods, I find that the provisional figures for 1986, 1987 and 1988 show that the British share is 5·7 per cent., 6 per cent. and 6·2 per cent. We went through decade after decade of decline both in the volume and the value share. We have now seen that the volume share has stabilised over the past few years. Over the past three years we have seen an increase in the value share. I believe that those figures give an indication of the way in which matters are going.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, though our visibles trade in total has always shown a deficit, our trade in manufactures showed a surplus until a very few years ago?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that may well be so. It is no good looking at particular sectors. We have to realise that the world changes and that the balance of manufactured goods themselves has changed. Perhaps in 1820 we produced half of the world's steel and over half of the world's textiles, but since then other nations have learnt the secret of producing both steel and textiles. If we are to keep our place under the sun and to have productivity and an economy that will maintain standards that citizens wish to see, then we have to create wealth. Often the creation of wealth is in the provision of services and not necessarily in the making of products. That is the important matter to which the Government must continue to pay attention.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, despite what the Secretary of State has said about the past three years, according to statistics prepared this month by his department, the United Kingdom share by value of world trade in manufacturing industries is still very much lower than it was in 1980?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that in 1980 the share by value was 7·8 per cent. It dropped very rapidly in a few years after that. We are talking about share of world trade. World trade continues to expand. We are but one nation of some 60 million people or less sharing in that world trade. In the past three years we have seen that share increase until today it stands at a level that has not been seen since the early 1980s. The important matter is that we continue to maintain our place and even to improve it in the face of rapidly expanding world trade.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that according to his Answer we shall have to do much better than we are doing? We have been almost static since 1981 in percentage terms. Does the Minister not agree that we have to bear in mind that in the foreseeable future the Government will lose, or will suffer a very large diminution of the benefit arising from our oil revenues? Does he not agree that that is the time of reckoning, and that we should be doing much better than we are in order to cushion the effects of that situation when it happens?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. The Government have lost a share of oil revenues due to accidental causes in the past six or so months. What we have seen is British productivity in manufacturing industry increasing at a rate faster than anywhere else. In the past three months to December the export of manufactures was 3 per cent. higher than a year ago. The Autumn Statement forecasts growth in manufacturing exports of over 8 per cent. in 1989 which is close to the projected growth of world trade. We have seen the United Kingdom export of manufactured goods continue to increase.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, as 1992 approaches what steps are the Government taking to improve the

995
financial arrangements in Europe where two-thirds of our visible deficit lies? Perhaps there could be some arrangement on the lines of the old sterling area where balances were cleared quite comfortably.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Wolfson. If, by an interesting method, the noble Lord is introducing the concept of exchange rate mechanism or any other system in Europe, that is an entirely different question.

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Hesketh will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the National Health Service Review. It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Companies Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 and the Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (No. 2) Regulations 1988 will be taken.

National Maritime Museum Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Power to alter accounting requirements]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 31, leave out from beginning of line 43 to ("or") in line 44.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to ask the Government why they have allocated to
996
the Secretary of State the broad powers contained in this paragraph. At present the Secretary of State has powers assigned to him by Schedule 4 of the Companies Act 1985 but those do not seem to be as wide as the powers we are discussing at this moment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government's view is that, as under the existing Act, any regulations which impose more onerous duties on companies should be subject to positive resolution procedure.
The noble Lord's amendment would introduce an exception to this principle. If the Committee as a whole considers the principle to be wrong, or accepts that there are strong grounds for departing from it when the more onerous duty consisted of adding to the material to be included in the accounts and the directors' report, then the Government would be prepared to reconsider. But as things stand we believe we have the balance the right way round.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I shall study what he said. This was a probing amendment and I may come back with it at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Clause 18 is the kind of clause that one finds only too frequently in Bills. I refer to the provisions whereby, notwithstanding anything already in the Bill, the Secretary of State reserves the right to introduce all kinds of regulations. We are well familiar with this. In Section 256 of the Companies Act 1985 there are already extensive powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations. We accept the noble Lord's point that such regulations as the Secretary of State brings before Parliament must be assented to by affirmative resolution. That is at any rate something.
I wonder why in this instance the Secretary of State needs these additional powers. The Bill states that the regulations can be limited to those that add to the class of documents required to be prepared, those that restrict the classes of company which have the benefit of any exemption or otherwise render the requirements of the part more onerous. There have been divisions in the Committee. Some noble Lords, mainly perhaps on the other side, although I do not insist on that point, think that the requirements are already too onerous; other noble Lords think that they are not onerous enough. Would it not be better if the Secretary of State indicated what kind of regulations he had in mind and what impelled him to take the extra powers in the Bill?
Subsection (4) of the clause states:
"Regulations under this section may—
(c) contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
These are extensive powers to give to a Secretary of State. They may even depend on his subjective state of mind. Are we quite sure that we want to give the Secretary of State powers on this scale when during

997
our discussions in Committee we have already gone into tremendous detail after considerable debate? Surely we can have a little more from the noble Lord on exactly what he has in mind.
This is not to say that we on this side of the Committee want to restrict unreasonably the powers or the Secretary of State. We well realise that, with the passage of time and with the coming into operation of the provisions of the Bill, circumstances may change. New factors may emerge which necessitate regulations being issued. Under the freedoms so eloquently enunciated by the Secretary of State the patterns of commercial and financial activities arc forever changing. We do not want to restrict him unreasonably but we should like a little more idea of exactly what he had in mind when this clause was put into the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, believes that any government who give themselves powers to change primary legislation by statutory instrument must be treated with the maximum of suspicion. I wonder whether any government could escape his disapproval on that basis.
Lord Bruce of Donington: No.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord shakes his head in agreement.
The power contained in Section 256 of the 1985 Act, on which this clause is based, has existed since the Companies Act 1948. This, and other powers to alter parts of the principal Act, have been re-enacted with amendments in 1976, 1980 and 1981. They are all powers to change primary legislation. Moreover, there are notable examples of powers to amend or extend primary legislation by regulations in other areas.
I readily agree that the present clause contains a slightly wider power than the corresponding provision of the 1985 Act. But the power is not unlimited. It is only a power to modify and, moreover, can be exercised only within the four corners of the primary legislation. The result of these limitations is that the power is confined to matters relating to the accounts of companies and their audit; it cannot be used to replace the original provisions with radically different provisions, nor to introduce completely extraneous subject matter.
We all have a deep respect for the primary legislative process and for the role which noble Lords play in creating it. But we need to be realistic. Technical legislation of the kind we are discussing is not about high principles: it is about detailed rules. Much of the substance of these rules lies in the precise way in which they are expressed. Much of the expertise in these areas lies outside the Government and indeed perhaps outside this Chamber. To secure the best possible legislation, therefore, it is highly desirable to circulate a text in good time for interested parties to study and comment on it. In the real world, and with the best will in the world, it is not usually easy to follow this prescription when producing primary legislation. I believe that that has been the experience of successive governments. However, it is much easier to circulate draft regulations in good
998
time for comments to be received and the regulations to be amended, if necessary, before they are discussed in Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked me for some examples. As I said, this power is designed to enable the legislation to be kept up to date in a highly technical area. We hope that the Bill has got it right for the present, but we may on occasion need to change it. For example, we intend to use the power to assist in the implementation of the bank accounts directive which is due for implementation next year.
We have extended the power to enable the whole or part of Part VII of the 1985 Act to be kept right up to date rather than just the contents of accounts. It is a highly technical area which is subject to continual developments. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will sympathise. I also hope what I have said has shown that the power sought in Clause 18 is not at all unreasonable and is not unprecedented. We cannot expect to have a new Companies Bill every time we wish to make a technical amendment.
The use of the power conferred by the clause will be confined to matters already covered by Part 1 of the Bill, and any regulations made will be subject to parliamentary procedures. I believe that that provides an appropriate means of keeping this technical area of company law up to date in the future. I beg to move that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I entirely agree with what the Minister said. When one sees a clause in a Bill of this kind, especially a somewhat technical Bill such as this, one has to be suspicious of giving more powers to the Secretary of State to legislate in that way. My suspicions about the clause were somewhat diluted by the observations made by the Minister when we were considering the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, which put forward the proposal that references to research and development should be introduced into the accounts. Therefore I wonder whether the Minister can say, without any commitment, that generally such an amendment would be suitable and would be received sympathetically by the Government for legislation by regulation.
I am worried that such a proposal might fall because of the words contained in subsection (2)(d). It refers to regulations which,
"otherwise render the requirements of this Part more onerous".
Would not the introduction of more facts into, for instance, statements of account be more onerous? They might be matters such as those mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, which had great support throughout the Committee. Further, it might be in the public interest that there should be information in the accounts about the energy efficiency of firms or the amount of expenditure in relation to energy matters. As 1 said, would that not be onerous?
It is therefore most difficult to give support to the Bill before having further indication about what is meant by "more onerous". I have also had difficulties

999
about the word "classes". Subsection (2)(a) refers to "classes of documents". Those words are simple to understand. In subsection (2)(b) it says "classes of company". I think that I also understand what that means. However, in subsection (2)(b) it says:
"require additional matter to be included in a document of any class".
I cannot quite understand what is meant by "any class" in that context. Perhaps the noble Lord can help us a little further as regards the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and those to which I have just referred regarding the wording of this new section.
Viscount Caldecote: At the end of the debate which we had upon the amendment in which I proposed to include R&D expenditure in company accounts, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde gave an assurance that Clause 18(2)(c) would enable the Secretary of State to make an order requiring research and development expenditure to be included in company accounts. Can he confirm that the "document of any class" includes company accounts? Further, can he also confirm that what he said yesterday is still the case after he has given the matter further consideration?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may just add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. In his first reply to my noble friend the noble Lord mentioned the problem of bank accounts. As he will know, last night, if I may put it that way, 1 did not move a series of amendments dealing with banking companies. However, will the provisions under this section deal with bank accounts and the bank problem that I foreshadowed on Second Reading and raised again last night but did not press? If that is the case, why do we not simply pass a Bill saying that the Secretary of State shall do whatever he feels necessary to make whatever regulations he feels appropriate for any company to do whatever it likes in accounts? It seems to me that if we are going to do this, we must make the primary legislation a little more specific than the Government have at present.
Lord Strathclyde: Many Members of the Committee have asked detailed questions on this clause. Perhaps I may first turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. He asked whether this "more onerous" provision would work within this meaning. "More onerous" governs parliamentary procedure, not ability to use the regulations. Therefore the words "more onerous" add to the requirements. For instance, documents can be changed in accounts and reports.
As regards the question of my noble friend Lord Caldecote—which he raised yesterda and upon which I gave him an assurance that we would come back to the matter—I say this. It is precisely such matters which could be changed by using this clause. Therefore I hope that he will feel happier with the provisions of the Bill as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked whether the regulations would be used for bank
1000
accounts. The answer is that they can be. This regulation, or the regulations arising out of this clause, can be used to change the matters he raised yesterday.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not want to prolong the debate because I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. However, does that mean that all the amendments I tabled on the question of bank accounts, transfers of any reserves and a true and fair view of banks are otiose because the Government have power to do whatever they want under the Bill as drafted?
Lord Strathclyde: I must return to what I said in my opening words: the principal point of the clause is to deal with a highly technical piece of company legislation. It can be used for some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised. Indeed, I do not think that I need add to that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful the noble Lord and again I must say that I do not wish to prolong the debate. However, it seems to me that changing the status of banks as to whether they should provide a true and fair view in their accounts as opposed to their accounts being in conformity with the legislation, is a major change. If the Secretary of State wishes to take those powers, we ought to know about it.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he would be prepared in the light of this discussion to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that the orders which this section envisages should not only be discussed widely in the various professions which are implicated but also be circulated before they come to this Chamber in printed draft to other noble Lords who are interested so that we may also have our input. As he well knows, we cannot amend orders in this place. We should like to have our input before we reach the point of having to debate the order.
Lord Strathclyde: That is what we are doing now. We are discussing what is going into the primary legislation. As I said, that is to enable us to adjust technical points. We set out our present intentions in the Bill, but we reserve the right to change technical points after a great deal of consultation with the industry and after taking into account the comments which were made in Committee yesterday and which will be made today and what the noble Lord has just said. I cannot see why the noble Lord continues to object to the point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The point that I am trying to impress upon the noble Lord is that we on this side—I believe that I speak not only for the Opposition but for noble Lords in other parts of the Committee—would like to have the same privilege as professional associations and others when a draft order is put out for consultation by the department.
We do not want to be presented with an order upon which the Institute of Bankers, the CBI and the Law Society have commented and we find that we have not received a copy of that draft order. That has been the case over and over again with draft Bills and

1001
orders. I repeatedly receive telephone calls from people in those institutions who say that they have received an interesting draft of a consumer protection Bill or something else on which they would like to have my opinion. The Opposition have not received the draft. May we have an assurance that we will receive the drafts when they are circulated to the associations in question?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will not dismiss the point that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has put to him because it raises an echo in my mind and, I guess, that of a number of my noble friends. Outside consultation is a good thing, but it happens from time to time, I am afraid, that on technical issues where there has been full outside consultation noble Lords in all parts of this place are not consulted but are faced with approving or disapproving—in most cases the conventionally cannot disapprove—an order.
I should welcome—I do not know whether my noble friend feels able to give it but his noble friend Lord Young of Graffham who is sitting beside him would be in a position to give it—some indication, although not in all cases because that would be a wearisome prolongation of discussion, that in cases where difficult or important points will arise, consultation with outside interests will be followed by consultation with at any rate some noble Lords in this place who have shown some interest in the subject matter. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable request.
Lord Strathclyde: I fully appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who spoke clearly on the subject. I am therefore more than happy to give the undertaking that such draft orders will be circulated so that we can have noble Lords' informed comment before we put them to this place, subject, of course, to parliamentary proprieties. In principle, I must confirm my undertaking that noble Lords will be included in all consultations.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The National Health Service
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"Britain enjoys high and rising levels of health care and, at its best, our health service is as good as any in the world. I believe that the principles underlying the NHS still hold good today and they will continue to guide it into the next century. The
1002
NHS is—and must remain—open to all, regardless of income, and financed mainly out of general taxation.
"But if those principles remain unchanged, the health service itself—and the society in which it operates—are changing for the better. We need constantly to improve and strengthen the NHS so that it can provide ever better care to those who rely on it. At the moment there are wide variations in performance across the country. We want to maintain the best of the health service, and bring the rest of it up to that very high standard.
"That is why the Government set out upon a fundamental review of the NHS last year. We have today published our conclusions in the White Paper entitled Working for Patients. They build on and evolve from the improvements that the Government have already made to the service in the past 10 years. They reflect a change of pace rather than any fundamental change of direction. All of our proposals share a common purpose—to make the health service a place where patients come first and where decisions are increasingly taken at a local level by those most directly involved in delivering and managing care.
"The main proposals apply to all the United Kingdom but there are separate chapters devoted to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland explaining how they will be applied in those countries. Implementation of the proposals will have to follow a process of discussion with many people in the service. We shall be issuing in the course of the next week or two eight detailed working papers as the basis for those discussions.
"Before I turn to the key proposals on management and the use of resources contained in the White Paper, I want to describe the kind of hospital service that I believe every patient has a right to expect. All hospitals should provide individual appointment times that can be relied upon. They should offer attractive waiting areas with proper facilities for patients and children. They should be able to deliver proper counselling to those who need it and give clear and sensitive explanations of what it going on. In addition, patients should be able to pay for a number of optional extras such as a wider choice of meals, a bedside telephone, a television, or a single room. The best hospitals already provide this and I want to see the whole service treating patients properly as people.
"We shall also ensure that patients are freer to choose and change their General Practitioner. And we shall give more encouragement to those GPs who, by offering the kind of service that people want, succeed in attracting more patients. To achieve that, we are proposing to increase the proportion of GPs' pay which comes from the number of patients on their lists from 46 per cent. to at least 60 per cent.
"People look to their GPs to prescribe the medicines they need, and GPs must have the necessary flexibility to do so. But at present, drug costs in some places are nearly twice as high per head of population as in others, even where the

1003
incidence of illness is much the same. The drugs bill is the largest single element of all spending on the family practitioner services. At £1.9 billion in 1987–88, it as more than the cost of the doctors who wrote the prescriptions. In each of the past five years, spending has risen by an average of 4 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation. Unnecessarily expensive prescribing is wasteful and takes up resources that should be used in other ways. Over-prescribing is not in the best interests of patients. We shall therefore introduce a new budgeting scheme whereby GP practices will receive indicative budgets for their prescribing costs. The scheme will be operated in a way that ensures downward pressure on the cost of prescribing without inhibiting the ability of doctors to provide necessary medicines for their patients.
"At present, because of the way that hospitals are funded, GPs are not always able to offer their patients a full choice as to where they will be treated. We want to change this by giving GPs in large practices the opportunity to hold their own National Health Service budgets. They will be able to use these to purchase as they judge best certain types of hospital services for their patients. They will, in other words, be able to provide the hospitals they choose for their patients with the NHS funds required to finance the services the hospitals perform.
"These GP practice budgets will cover inpatients, out-patients and day care treatments —for instance hip replacements and cataract removals. They will also cover prescribing costs and diagnostic tests, such as X-rays and pathology tests. Large practices will be free to decide whether or not to join the scheme. It will at first only be open to practices with at least 11,000 patients—that is twice the national average. Over 1,000 UK practices could join, covering about one in four of the population. All of those practices could have their own NHS budgets of about £½million a year. Giving GPs the resources to finance services for their own patients will provide a real incentive to hospitals to improve the service they offer to those GPs. It will also enable GPs to provide a better service to patients; for example by referring them to where waiting lists are shortest. I am quite sure that GPs will want to judge the quality of service at least as much as the cost of services when they decide where to refer their patients. We have important proposals on the quality of medical service to which I shall turn later.
"But it will not just be through GP practice budgets that money will follow the patient to where work is done best. The principle will apply throughout the health service as a whole. As part of this new way of getting resources to hospitals, the present elaborate system known as RAWP will come to an end. Over the last 12 years it has made an important contribution by helping to equalise the resources available to each region, but that task has now very largely been achieved. Now we are in a position to replace it with an altogether more
1004
simple and fair system based on population numbers weighted for age and health and the relative costs of providing services. It will be much quicker to compensate those regions which treat large numbers of patients from elsewhere in the country. We shall move to a system which finances regions and districts on exactly the same system, with a 3 per cent. addition for the Thames regions because of the inescapable extra problems of providing health care in the capital.
"In future the money required to treat patients will be able to cross administrative boundaries more freely, so that those hospitals which best meet patients' needs get the funds to do so. All National Health Service hospitals will be able to offer their services to different health authorities and the private sector. All district health authorities will be able to provide finance for health services to whatever hospitals they choose in other districts or their own. As a result, we shall not in future have the frustrating situation whereby a good, efficient hospital that attracts more patients runs out of money and has to slow down its work or close wards. This new system will start in 1990 for regional health authorities and 1991 for districts.
"But improving the hospital service is not just a matter of changing the way in which hospitals receive their funds. We also want to change the way in which they are run and managed. We want all hospitals to have more responsibility for their own affairs so that they can make the most of local commitment, energy and skills, and can get on with what they are best at- providing care.
"Management can be strengthened throughout the whole health service. The better the management the better the care it can deliver. Financial accountability and value for money will be improved by transferring audit of the health authorities and other National Health Service bodies to the independent Audit Commission. The role of the National Audit Office will not be affected by this change. On management matters, it is nonsense that the Ministers of any Government should be directly involved in the detail of the day-to-day running of the whole National Health Service. We shall therefore set up a new National Health Service Management Executive chaired by the new Chief Executive, Mr. Duncan Nichol, and responsible for all operational decisions. It will be accountable to an NHS policy board chaired by the Secretary of State for Health who will determine policy and strategy for the service.
"The prime responsibilty of health authorities will be to ensure that the population for which they are answerable has access to a full range of high quality, good value services. Their job will be to judge the quality of services, to choose the best mix of services for their resident population and to finance those services. They will no longer provide and run all their local services, which will be increasingly the role of the hospital and unit managers themselves. Authorities will need to be organised as more effective decision-making and managerial bodies. We shall therefore be changing their composition to make them smaller and to include executive and non-executive members. The

1005
non-executive members will he appointed on the basis of the personal skills and expertise they can bring to the authority and not as representatives of interest groups. Although there will no doubt continue to be people who will combine being members of local health authorities with being local councillors, local authorities will lose their present rights to appoint direct their own members. At the same time we shall also be strengthening the management of' family practitioner committees along similar lines. We shall also make them accountable for the first time to regional health authorities so as to improve the links between planning for the hospital, community and family practitioner services.
"We must devolve responsibility across the whole health service. But I believe that we can also go one stage further. The next logical step in the process of extending local responsibilty is to allow individual hospitals to become self-governing. Let me make it absolutely clear that they will still be as much within the National Health Service as they are now. They will be no freer to leave the National Health Service than any unit has been throughout its 40-year history. They will have far more freedom to take their own decisions on the matters that affect them most without detailed supervision by district, region and my department. Known as National Health Service hospital trusts, they will be free to negotiate with their own staff on rates of pay, and within limits to borrow money. They will be able to offer agreed services for agreed resources through the National Health Service, and indeed in the private sector too. There will of course be safeguards to ensure that essential local services continue to be delivered locally. I believe that this new development will give patients more choice, produce a better quality service, build on the sense of pride in local hospitals and encourage other hospitals to do even better in order to compete. I expect the first National Health Service hospital trusts to he set up in April 1991.
"In all these reforms we intend to concentrate on the quality of care as much as quantity and cost. I admire the progress with which the medical profession is devising systems which doctors call `medical audit' to assess clinical performance and outcomes. We intend to work with the profession to ensure that good systems of medical audit are put in place in every hospital and GP practice as soon as is practicable. What matters for all patients is that high standards of medical performance are maintained and where possible improved, and such systems should secure that.
"I turn finally to the area of perhaps greatest public concern—waiting times. All the measures I have so far outlined by making resources flow more directly to those parts of the service that deliver the best care will help to cut the length of time that people sometimes have to wait for elective surgery. The waiting list initiative will continue but we shall also introduce a number of other initiatives designed to have a more direct and immediate impact. First, we intend all GP practices to have the basic information systems they need to know where treatment is available quickest. Secondly, we
1006
shall introduce a new tax relief to make it easier for people aged 60 and over to make private provision for their health care. This will reduce the pressure on the National Health Service from the very age group most likely to require elective surgery, freeing up resources for those who need it most. Thirdly, we shall manage consultants' contracts more effectively so that the very best use is made of their time and expertise. We shall also reform the distinction award system to ensure that commitment to the service and involvement with the management of the National Health Service are included among the criteria for awards.
"Fourthly, we shall increase the number of consultants by 100 over the next three years over and above the increase in the number of consultants already planned. These additional consultants will be appointed in those specialties and in those districts where waiting times are most worrying. Finance will be made available to cover the costs of the new appointments and the supporting service for their workload. This will help us keep up the attack not only on waiting times but also on long hours worked by junior doctors.
"Taken together, these proposals add up to the most formidable programme of reform in the history of the National Health Service. They are the latest step in our drive to build a stronger, more modern, more efficient health service. For an NHS that is run better will be an NHS that can care better. They will of course mean change, but change of the kind we need if we are to have a service that is fit for the future. I trust that all those who, like me, truly believe in a health service which offers high quality care to all our people will lend their support to these reforms, and I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. What is proposed, as he accepted in his last paragraph, is a massive shake-up of a fine service that has suffered in the past from too little money and too many ill-conceived reorganisations at the hands of successive Conservative governments.
This White Paper bears all the hallmarks of a thoroughly botched up job. There is a hastily announced review conducted by a secretive hole-incorner cabal of politicians and civil servants without proper consultation with those who work in the National Health Service. There is also a blatantly leaky review team who seem unable to hang on to their own secret documents. I believe that the document, in spite of its wording, is deeply insensitive to the commitments and concerns of those who need and use the health service. It implies some fundamental changes, in spite of assurances in the Statement just read, that it proposes only a change of pace.
There is mention of a massive opt-out of hundreds of hospitals which would cease to be responsible to health authorities. They will be in competition with

1007
each other to win contracts from health authorities. Under these proposals people may get operations they do not need, if there are profits to be made, and may be refused operations they need if there is no money to be made.
Free standing, independently run, cash limited GP teams are proposed. These will be in competition with other GP teams. For the first time doctors will be given a financial motive to deny treatment to patients whom they have the right to refuse. Further, tax relief for the elderly is proposed to promote private health insurance. This was previously opposed by the Secretary of State himself. Further—this was not announced, but it was inevitable—a massive burden of bureaucracy, American style, will be imposed on the health service.
It is proposed to sack elected councillors from health authorities, thus ending any question of local democracy. I believe this is a further step towards the politicisation of the health service. I strongly object—I believe the public will too—to the National Health Service being used as a political football. Those on the other side of the House ignore consensus and seem to welcome confrontation. They will achieve that objective from these Benches, because we will fight for a principled, patients before profits, health service.
Over the weekend the Secretary of State for Health seemed to he saying, "Watch my lips—no privatisation". But the proposals he has announced today amount to a major move towards a private system of health care. Private agencies will be competing with each other to run the hospitals, community services and family doctor services. The health service will be pushed away from being a public service, as it has been for over 40 years. Health care will be bartered in the market place. It is no good the Secretary of State pretending that these provisions are not to be a boost for the private sector. This has been the Prime Minister's objective from the beginning. She has made it quite clear.
I believe there are grave dangers inherent in the argument that profits should replace patient needs as the principal objective of health authorities. The US system proves that. The logic of the survival of the fittest is the neglect of the most needy, the elderly and the handicapped.
Contrary to what is said in the Statement, I believe these proposals will not meet the challenge of patient choice. The trend will be for patients to be pushed to accept the cheapest option, whether it is drugs or anything else. That option may not be the best option. It is claimed that patients will have freedom to choose their general practitioners. But there will also be freedom for general practitioners to refuse to accept patients who might make heavy demands on a GP's budget.
I wish to ask the noble Lord some questions. I have given him notice of most of these questions. What is the future of the laboratory services, which fulfill a vital service today? There is a need to extend the preventive health services. Those services are accepted on all sides of the House as being an essential part of our health system. What will happen
1008
to them? What is the future for community care? That has still not been answered in the Statement.
I hope that the noble Lord will say something about the cost to the National Health Service of training for personnel who later work in the private sector. What are the cost effects of this new type of health service? Will the noble Lord say something about incentives to National Health Service hospitals to go independent? Who supports these proposals? Certainly they have not gained the support of doctors. The BMA has announced its opposition. What about the nurses and other professionals? What about the ancillaries who play such an important part in the health service? It seems sad to me that this Government see no point in seeking to achieve a consensus, as has been the case in the past.
I conclude by assuring the Minister that support for the fundamental principles of the health service crosses party lines totally. We have demonstrated that in your Lordships' House on many previous occasions. We on these Labour Benches will vigorously oppose any plans which undermine the ability of the National Health Service to meet the health needs of all the people, rich and poor. We shall fight vigorously to safeguard the principle that patients must always take priority over profits. We shall want a very early debate on this White Paper.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I too wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating this extremely cleverly worded, though nonetheless disquieting, Statement. I am sure the noble Lord will accept that, along with other noble Lords, I do not approve of long speeches on Statements. I have no intention of making a long speech. But I ask the noble Lord to accept that many noble Lords on these Benches. and I am sure in all parts of your Lordships' House, will wish at some stage to speak at some length on many of the matters itemised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
I underline in particular the suggestion of the application of cash limits to family practitioner committee services and the somewhat bizarre suggestion to allow individual hospitals to become self-governing, whatever that may mean. Finally, I emphasise the omission of any reference at all in the Statement—I cannot say whether this is the case in the review, as I have not read it—to the report of Sir Roy Griffiths, or even to the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on priorities in medical research. We were promised a full response to both of those reports in the National Health Service review.
Is the noble Lord aware that in your Lordships' House there is a fund of experience, expertise and wisdom on National Health Service matters that is unequalled anywhere else? It is perhaps even unequalled within the BMA and the DHSS. It therefore follows that, if a full debate on these matters could be arranged very soon, it might save the National Health Service from catastrophe. It might also perhaps save the Government from the consequences of their own folly. I point out that it is the former of those considerations with which we are most deeply concerned. I hope that the noble Lord will consult with his noble friend the Leader of the House and tell him that there is a very strong feeling

1009
that these very important matters should be fully debated in your Lordships' House as soon as possible.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, possibly predictably, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, accused this Government of reducing expenditure and not supervising the beneficial development of the National Health Service. Before answering any questions, I should like to remind your Lordships' House that expenditure, since this Government took office on the National Health Service has risen in real terms, after inflation, by some 40 per cent. None of us should forget that fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, went on to describe opting out. The White Paper does not talk about opting out anywhere. It mentions doing something for which this Government is constantly berated from the Benches opposite. We are constantly accused of centralisation. A White Paper is presented to your Lordships' House which proposes genuine decentralisation. It proposes to return the National Health Service genuinely to the communities which it serves. We have no intention of affecting the future of the National Health Service other than in an entirely beneficial way.
I should have hoped that it might have been obvious from the Statement that the standards that we have chosen to set as the benchmark of excellence are not those of the private sector or of the United States—they are those of the National Health Service itself. Those are the standards that we have chosen as a basis for setting the standard.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has observed that the first chief executive of this revamped and improved service comes not from industry, not from overseas, has not been headhunted from Wall Street: he comes from within the management of the National Health Service. Those are important points which demonstrate our commitment to the National Health Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned tax relief. All that we are suggesting is that those who have provided for themselves before retirement, and in that way assisted the National Health Service, should be allowed to continue to do so after retirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke of bureaucracy. There is always the great difficulty that when one talks about management one is accused by the Labour Party of bureaucratic expenditure. The only bureaucracy which the White Paper intends to encourage is bureaucracy that saves money so that more patients can be treated in a bigger and better National Health Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was unhappy about what he regarded as the possible destruction of local democracy in the health service. When the new arrangements for hospitals come about the hospitals will be run by people who are consultants, National Health Service managers and nursing officers. In my experience such people live close to the hospitals. The management will be committed to those hospitals as never before.
1010
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked about the future of laboratories. I can assure the noble Lord that no central initiative is mentioned in the White Paper in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, together with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, quite properly mentioned community care and the Griffiths Report. The review has focused closely on the funding and management of the health services and on hospitals and family doctors in particular. The interaction of health and social care in the field of community care needs further study. That work is well in hand and the results of the review will help to advance it further.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also inquired why the review has been so secretive. That is not so. It has not been secretive. Internal reviews of policy happen all the time in government departments. We have welcomed the public debate in the past year and in our deliberations we have taken account of all the contributions.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked about training with reference to a possible levy. 1 think that he may have forgotten that the private sector already makes a welcome contribution to post basic specialist nurse training. The department and private sector representatives have recently agreed to the setting up of a joint working party with the aim of increasing the total stock of skilled staff available to both services.
We have increased expenditure. We are making a commitment to a better health service on a truly accountable basis. We are decentralising rather than centralising.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, first perhaps I may support the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to my noble friend for an early debate in your Lordships' House on this immensely important Statement. Your Lordships' House has much to contribute and I think that it would be very helpful, not least to the Government, were an early debate to be arranged.
In the same context perhaps I may ask whether legislation is involved in any of the massive changes which my noble friend has outlined. If there is to he major legislation, that to some extent helps to answer the request for a debate but I do not think that it cancels it out. I think that a general debate on the whole of this important Statement is very strongly indicated and I hope will be sympathetically considered by my noble friends on the Front Bench.
As one who was in another place when the late Mr. Bevan introduced the National Health Service Bill 40-odd years ago, I think that it is plain that these proposals are the biggest development, reform or change—whatever word one likes to use—in the history of the National Health Service. Though they will have to be debated, and debated in fall, they confirm the immense care and trouble which our right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has taken in seeking to bring the health service and its organisation into a shape in which it can face the changing problems of this changing age.
There are so many points in the Statement that one would delay your Lordships by referring to them.

1011
However, I want to say how enthusiastic I am about two of those points. The first concerns the proposals for hospitals. To some extent they seek to reverse the mistake which I think that the late Mr. Bevan made in submerging the organisation and administration of the hospitals in the general system. It will help to restore to the hospitals a measure of independence and thereby help them to resume the very high standard that they maintained under the old system and the stimulus that comes from being in some measure independent.
The other point is the very interesting proposal to increase to 60 per cent. the proportion of a doctor's remuneration which relates to the number of patients on his list. That must be a good stimulus to doctors—if they need it, and some perhaps do—to give patients the service which makes patients want to stay with them and other patients to join them. I shall be interested to hear why that proposal stops at 60 per cent. If a doctor is giving service which appeals enormously strongly to people in his area and they come to his practice, I question whether it is right to limit the remuneration to 60 per cent. of his salary and whether a higher figure might not be contemplated.
Finally, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on reading this immensely impressive Statement in such an admirable way and ask him to convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the approval of many of us of the great work which he has obviously done in originating it.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords. I should like to thank my noble friend for his very kind remarks and to answer the three points which he raised. With regard to the 60 per cent. remuneration for GPs, the noble Lord said that that may not have gone far enough. My answer to him is that we have gone quite a long way.
With regard to the matter of legislation before your Lordships' House, I am sure that it will come as no surprise to my noble friend that a considerable amount of primary legislation will be required for which the Government are committed to bringing forward a Bill at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in this Session?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, finally, I shall certainly draw to the attention of my noble friends who are in charge of such matters the desire for a debate at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on this Bench should also like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this extremely important Statement. In some respects the tone of the Statement is rather strange. On the first page it refers to a change of pace rather than any fundamental change of direction, yet on the last page, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has already pointed out, it claims to be the most formidable programme of reform in the history of the NHS. Those two statements do not appear to be entirely compatible.
1012
It is not our practice to make knee-jerk reactions to government statements of this kind. I think that on balance, to make an analogy with E. M. Forster's Two Cheers for Democracy, one can give one cheer for the Statement.
I agree with all noble Lords who have said that we need a full debate, but I should like to ask the noble Lord four brief questions. I think that the proposals with regard to hospitals give least cause for worry. We favour an internal market to reduce waiting lists. as advocated by my right honourable friend David Owen. I think that some progress could be made in that respect. However, we certainly did not envisage the opting out of nearly 300 district general hospitals. Can the noble Lord comment on the meaning of the phrase in the Statement:
"They will be no freer to leave the National Health Service than any unit has been throughout its 40-year history".
I wonder whether he can comment on what is behind that phrase.
I believe that the area that gives the greatest cause for concern is that of general practice. Cash limiting of general practice must raise extremely serious ethical problems. The doctor's duty is to his patient rather than to his budget. I should like to know whether the Minister has thought about that question and whether he has taken into account the considerable advances that have already been made on more responsible prescribing both through the limited list and generic prescribing on a voluntary basis that is very much encouraged by the Royal College of General Practitioners. On reflection, does the Minister think that the voluntary route is the best way forward in that particular sphere? Does he agree that this may well set up a ping-pong effect between general practitioners and hospitals as to who will foot the drugs bill?
As regards the eight detailed working papers mentioned in the Statement, can the noble Lord say what degree of consultation there will be on those matters? Will GPs, the BMA and other interested bodies have a proper opportunity to comment and make their own proposals or counter-proposals? After all, even Aneurin Bevan consulted the doctors, but there is not much sign that that is the line which the Government want to take.
My fourth question on community care has already been dealt with. The noble Lord said that it was irrelevant. However, that is not the case. I understand that 60 psychiatric hospitals are likely to close in the next 10 years, pushing out into the community 20,000 patients. That is a massive problem which certainly ought to have received attention in such a review.
Finally, perhaps he can tell me when the Government will reply to the Griffiths Report. With regard to the financial aspects, I deplore the tax break. It goes against the principle of a neutral fiscal policy which has always been proclaimed by the Chancellor. I believe that the Secretary of State was not too happy about it either. Can the noble Lord say whether the tax break for elderly people who already have private insurance, which will not in fact generate very much more money into the health system, is simply the thin end of the wedge with a view to

1013
extending the practice to the whole of the community? That is obviously the logical direction to which it tends.
I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would answer those questions. Of course I support all the recommendations for an early debate.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the fact is that the hospitals will be no freer at all to leave the National Health Service. I must emphasise the important point about the Government's proposals for allowing hospitals to become self-governing. They will become self-governing as National Health Service trusts. They will be part of the National Health Service.
The object is not to let them opt out of the National Health Service but to provide a better service at a local level. As regards consultation, we have had a considerable amount of discussion both within and outside the department, including the professions, the professionals and all those involved in the health service. As regards cash limits, the introduction of some discipline through the use of budgets is by no means the same as cash limiting. The objective of the scheme is to place downward pressure on drug expenditure.
The key word in relation to prescriptions is "indicative". Many of your Lordships may have watched "TV AM" this morning and seen an interview with a GP, who found it interesting to learn where certain sums of his money were going and was able to take action to reduce the level of his expenditure. The word is "indicative". It is not "trying to strongarm" or "force". The word is "indicative".
The noble Lord said that tax breaks could be the thin end of the wedge. That is far from the case. As I said earlier, the object of the exercise is to allow people who have contributed to private insurance schemes all their lives to continue to do so in retirement. I am sure that your Lordships' House approves of a concept which will not only help those who take part in the schemes but reduce pressure on the fastest growing sector of the National Health Service and also encourage people to spend money on their health rather than on imported consumer durables. I think that that makes fiscal as well as medical sense.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend about the rather oddly named "indicative drug budgets". It could mean almost anything. The scheme is referred to in Chapter 7.15 of the White Paper. The operation of the scheme is described in Chapter 7.18 as:
"The Secretary of State for Health will publish shortly a working paper which will set out the detail of how the scheme will be implemented, for discussion with interested parties".
Can my noble friend say in this context what "shortly" means? Who are the interested parties? As my noble friend inquired, will legislation be involved? Shall we receive all this information before the debate?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that my noble friend is somewhat pre-empting the matter with his assumption that a date for the debate has already
1014
been fixed. I believe that I am correct in saying that the period of time of which we are speaking is within the next one to two weeks with regard to the discussion document. As regards the interested parties, it will of course be those parties who are interested in this subject.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on repeating the Statement this afternoon. As chairman of the Select Committee which investigated medical research, I should like to record some disappointment that there has so far been no mention of research in this review, as we have heard it described today. Our studies showed that there were considerable inadequacies in the National Health Service in relation to the provision of clinical research and health services research. I hope very much that the Minister will have something to say this afternoon or certainly during the debate on this important topic. There is no doubt that research has a very important contribution to make to the very objectives that the Minister has outlined to the House. If it is not included, it seems to me to be a lost opportunity to bring into this review the important aspect of research and the contribution that it can make to the objectives that he has outlined to us.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's comments. I am sure he is aware after having heard the Statement that the review has concentrated on hospitals and family doctors in particular. I am certainly well aware of the importance of medical research and will draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I must comment on the adequacy of the response to the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford. I understand that the report of the Select Committee was in the Government's hands almost a year ago—in fact in February last year. The reply from the Government to your Lordships' House was delayed because it was intended to include it in the White Paper review. Why has it not been included in the White Paper review after the promise given to your Lordships' Select Committee?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, research is covered in the White Paper review on pages 37 and 38.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, while I warmly welcome much of the Statement. perhaps I may press my noble friend on one point. Why do the Government persistently regard democratically elected councillors as unrepresentative of local interests and concerns?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Rippon for raising that point. I should point out to him that he will see in the White Paper a very important statement; namely, that the object of the programme that we are proposing, whereby we shall be reducing the numbers involved on boards, is to reduce membership to people who have in part a straightforward technical contribution to make. There are other people who will not be on the board, such as contractors and those who might

1015
have an interest from another side and another place, as well as other parties. This is in no way an attack on local authorities.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, on that analogy, why do we not leave government to the Permanent Secretaries?
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend, if he can, to reassure us on a point which I think will concern a lot of people: namely, there is the possibility raised in the rather short outline of the White Paper that he has given that hospital services going under the hospitals trusts (320) could lead to a two-tier hospital service. I am sure he will agree that one of the great functions of the National Health Service over 40 years has been to disseminate talent and equality of care, and good care, all over the country. Can he reassure us that this will not be reversed; that this process which has gone on for 40 years will continue and that there will be no question of two-tier-type hospital services?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. He is entirely correct in stating that on paper some 320 hospitals could fit the profile but I think it is true to say that we in the department are certainly not expecting 320 hospitals to be in National Health Service trusts right away, or probably ever. The key is to provide a shining example which will be to the advantage of every hospital up and down the kingdom and which will result in standards not only being equal but improving.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, may I intervene for just one moment? I think it is fair to say that my noble friend has dealt with the questions that have been put to him comprehensively and succinctly. For that reason we could probably go on for a long time, but we are well over the period the House itself thinks is right for a Statement. May I suggest that we take a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood? I also know that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has a point that he particularly wants to make; and then I think we ought to pass on to the next business. Meanwhile, I give an assurance that I have certainly taken on board the fact that the House expects a debate on this matter.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can assure us that the two very bland paragraphs on pages 37 and 38 on training and research are not the only responses that the Government are going to make to the House of Lords Select Committee on priorities in medical research. These two paragraphs do not in any way address themselves to the recommendations of that Select Committee report.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is certainly not the case. I can assure your Lordships that responses to the Secretary of State's letter of 21st November 1988 to the regional health authority chairmen on your
1016
Lordship's Select Committee are being considered at this very moment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he said, but in this case the noble Baroness has made the point for me.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 19 [Parent and subsidiary undertakings]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 32, line 37, leave out from ("it") to ("the") in line 38 and insert ("actually exercises a dominant influence over").
The noble Lord said: I am very hopeful that the remainder of Part I of the Bill will result in some degree of harmony between ourselves and the Government. We, for our part, would like to see it go through as quickly and smoothly as possible, bearing in mind the time we have necessarily spent upon the Statement.
I beg to move this amendment which, as noble Lords will see, refers to the definition of a parent and a subsidiary undertaking. It may well be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendment No. 162 at the same time. That amendment bears on the same point. At the moment Section 257(2) reads as follows:
"(2) An undertaking is a parent undertaking in relation to another undertaking, a subsidiary undertaking, if—"
and we go to subsection (c) which says,
"it has the right to direct the operating and financial policies of the undertaking—".
Our amendment seeks to delete the words,
"has the right to direct the operating and financial policies"
and to substitute the words,
"actually exercises a dominant influence over".
I shall return to the question of the "dominant influence over" when discussing at the same time Amendment No. 162, which is concerned with the definition of control and control contract. That is referred to in subsection (5)(b). Perhaps I might read out the point so that one may ascertain exactly where Amendment No. 162 comes in and what its effect is. In subsection (5)(b),
"a 'control contract' means a contract in v,riting conferring such a right which"—
and then it gives two definitions in (i) and (ii). We desire to put in there as a new sub-paragraph (c),
"(c) 'dominant influence' over an undertaking means controlling the financial and operating policy decisions (including dividend policy) of that undertaking".
Our desire is to make the definition a little more precise and to bring it closer to the definitions that are

1017
set out in regard to the first amendment in the seventh directive and, in the second, to the statement of accounting practice which refers again to "dominant influence". Perhaps I can read the appropriate sections to your Lordships so that we may define it even more closely. According to the seventh directive, Article 1,
"A Member State shall require any undertaking governed by its national law to draw up consolidated accounts and a consolidated annual report if that undertaking (a parent undertaking):"—
and then at (c) we see this:
"has the right to exercise a dominant influence over an undertaking (a subsidiary undertaking) of which it is a shareholder or member, pursuant to a contract entered into with that undertaking or to a provision in its memorandum or articles of association, where the law governing that subsidiary undertaking permits its being subject to such contracts or provisions."
We think that by incorporating the words that are set out in the amendment we are more closely following the seventh directive.
In Amendment No. 162 we have followed this time the appropriate SSAP No. 1, which is an extract and which refers to:
"Significant influence over a company essentially involves participation in the financial and operating policy decisions of that company (including dividend policy) but not necessarily control of those policies".
I think probably that we may be knocking at an open door in asking the Government to accept these amendments, which I would submit more adequately reflect in legal terms what the Government are trying to do and may present fully the safeguards that the Government themselves had in mind. There is nothing dogmatic about this. The. noble Lord may prefer the words that are now there. We think that our words are an improvement, but if the noble Lord does not consider them to be so we shall not press the matter. We are trying to be helpful, that is all. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on the simple grounds that a difference in wording between the seventh directive and this legislation could create confusion. It would be highly desirable to use the same wording wherever possible.
The Earl of Harrowby: I should like to point out that according to my reading we are not talking about the same thing. A dominant influence is a very different matter from a right to direct. I think the Committee should recognise that before any amendment is pressed. 1 am not quite sure which wording is required, but it is quite clear that we are talking about two different aspects.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is a point on the drafting of the amendment:
"actually exercises a dominant influence over".
How would that apply in cases that arise where a company has a right to interfere in the operations of a subsidiary but as a matter of policy does not? The words "actually exercises" would seem to suggest that, although a company had the right to apply a dominant influence, it did not actually exercise it and therefore the amendment did not bite. I should be interested to know how the noble Lord explains that.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, prefaced his remarks by saying that he sought harmony between us. I always hope that that is the case between himself and myself. With the permission of the Committee, I too shall speak to Amendments Nos. 156 and 162.
I should like to comment first on Amendment No. 156. New Section 257(2)(c) gives effect to Article 1.1(c) of the seventh directive: in the terminology of the Bill one undertaking is to be regarded as the parent undertaking of another if it has the right to direct the operating and financial policies of that other, either by virtue of provisions in that other's constitution or by virtue of what the Bill terms a "control contract". New Section 258(5) explains what is meant by,
"a right to direct the operating and financial policies of an undertaking",
and by a "control contract" in this context. The former term is defined as a right to give directions with respect to the operation and finances of the dependent undertaking which its directors must comply with, whether or not they are for the benefit of the dependent undertaking. A "control contract" is defined as a contract in writing conferring such a right which is permitted both by the constitution of the undertaking concerned and by the law of the country where it is established.
I should make it clear that these provisions, despite their complexity, are unlikely to have much application where the putative subsidiary is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. We are introducing this into our law because the directive requires this and because the provisions are of utility in the few cases where they apply—principally putative subsidiary undertakings established elsewhere; that is particularly in West Germany.
The noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Ezra, questioned why we have departed from the language used in Article 1.1(c) of the seventh directive, which uses in this context, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned,
"a right to exercise a dominant influence".
Our obligation is to enact the intended effect of the directive and not necessarily its literal wording. Use of the actual words of the directive here may have caught a considerable number of undertakings where it was entirely inappropriate for the company to be consolidated by the parent. For example, those words could have required one of our major retailers to have to consolidate its suppliers because that company takes a close interest in the affairs of its suppliers. That is not the sort of case that Article 1.1(c) of the directive is aimed at. Rather, that provision is aimed at the German type of control contract that I have already mentioned. I hope that the noble Lord will come round to our way of thinking having heard that.
I shall now turn to Amendment No. 162, which seeks to define "dominant influence". We gave very careful consideration to a possible definition of "dominant influence" when we were framing this legislation. In our view any definition is likely either to narrow or widen the natural meaning of those words. In the end we decided that there was merit in

1019
following, without attempting to gloss, the language of the directive. Our intention is to curb the use of off balance sheet financing schemes through controlled non-subsidiary undertakings. Any definition of the term will encourage attempts to avoid the provision by artificial constructions with the intention of escaping from the letter of the definition. By leaving the term undefined in the legislation there is scope for guidance as to its meaning for practical purposes to be given in statements of standard accounting practice.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I am immediately with him on the fact that the whole reason for adopting a Community decision in the form of a directive is precisely to give the Government the responsibility of enacting their provisions in their own way and in accordance with their own laws. There is no compulsion for any government to follow slavishly the words of any directive coming from the European Community or any interpretation that the Commission itself might put upon the words. The very term "directive" as defined in Community law is that it gives a member state complete freedom to implement the directive in its own way. I am in full agreement with the noble Lord on that. 1 would not favour at any time the slavish following of any word or phrase appearing in a European directive.
On those grounds I think the Minister has satisfied me, although I feel that the words we have used are a little more precise and probably achieve the purpose better than the words that the noble Lord has put down. But I should like to have an opportunity of looking at that aspect of the matter again when we come to the Report stage.
As regards Amendment No. 162, the only degree in which the SSAP came into the matter was to bring into sharp focus the question of policy decisions. The Government may be unwise in not taking our amendment on this occasion because it places considerable reliance on SSAPs, which, as the noble Lord realises, are produced after very considerable research and thought by the six chief accountancy bodies, normally in collaboration with the DTI. so I am given to understand. Therefore, unless it is absolutely necessary one should not depart from the whole sense of the statement of accounting practice which I read to the Committee this afternoon.
I would not wish to insist upon the amendment this afternoon. In broad and general terms the noble Lord has satisfied us to quite a degree, but after having studied what he has said, and since we are talking about a very technical matter, we must reserve the right to return to this at Report stage if necessary. but I hope that it will not be necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 32, line 41, after ("contract") insert ("valid in United Kingdom law").
The noble Lord said: Once again this is a probing amendment. Once again we are referring to new Section 257(2)(c)(ii), which defines an undertaking as a,
"parent undertaking in relation to another undertaking. a subsidiary undertaking, if"—
and then we come down to the definition which we were discussing on the previous amendment—
"it has the right to direct the operating and financial policies of the undertaking… by virtue of a control contract".
We have ventured to suggest that there be inserted the phrase "valid in United Kingdom law" to delineate it a little more closely. We hope that that will commend itself to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord said that he was probing here, so perhaps I may explain further what is meant by a "control contract" in this context. It is a contract giving a right to direct the operating and financial policies of another undertaking—in the special sense of new Section 258(5)(a)—which is both authorised by that undertaking's constitution and is permitted by the law under which that undertaking is established.
Thus, where a putative subsidiary undertaking is established in Great Britain, it is under our law that the validity of a control contract to which it is a party must be tested. Where a putative subsidiary is established elsewhere, it must be tested under local law. In such a case conformity of the control contract with our law is, in a sense, irrelevant. The amendment therefore seems misconceived.
We envisage a control contract, as defined, as being lawful under our law for a subsidiary company only in exceptional circumstances. These are where a control contract is expressly authorised by the memorandum or articles of the company. In the light of that explanation. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Perhaps he will now see the advantages of an amendment which we tabled yesterday which was the subject of some disputation: it required subsidiary companies to state not only the country in which they operated but also their registered office and address. I am satisfied with the explanation given by the noble Lord and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 33. leave out lines 5 to 12.
The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of the new Section 257 incorporates an optional definition which is given in Article 1.2 of the seventh company law directive. Being optional. it does not have to be incorporated in our law, though I note from the Notes on Clauses that the Government say they are taking advantage of most of the opportunities for optional definitions. I am advised by the CBI, as the Committee knows, and it suggests that this optional definition is not helpful and does not assist in providing a suitable definition of a subsidiary for the purposes of definition with respect to off balance sheet financing. It therefore believes that the

1021
Government would be better advised not to take up this option. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me why he wants to do this, if he believes it to be essential. Alternatively, perhaps he will give it another look in view of the advice from these experienced people. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: New Section 257(3) contains a test for a parent/subsidiary relationship that is new to our law. What we are getting at here is the practical control of one company over another. An undertaking is to be regarded as the parent undertaking of another if it has what is termed a "participating interest" in the other and if it actually exercises a dominant influence over it, or if it and the other are managed on a unified basis. What is meant by a participating interest is set out in new Section 260, inserted by Clause 20. A participating interest essentially arises where one undertaking exercises a significant influence over another as a result of an interest in the share capital of that other; it is presumed to exist where 20 per cent. of the shares in that other are held.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked why we have implemented the member state option in Article 1.2 of the directive. That is in response to widespread concern over the use by some companies or groups of what, as my noble friend mentioned, are known as off balance sheet financing schemes.
Typically these schemes involve the use of a company which is controlled by the reporting company or group but which technically is not a subsidiary. Borrowing, for example, is channelled through the controlled non-subsidiary with the result that it does not appear on the balance sheet of the reporting company or the consolidated balance sheet of the reporting group. Accordingly the financial position may appear healthier than it otherwise would. That there is widespread concern over these schemes has been made clear to the department from the responses to extensive consultation on the issue. Although this change will not be welcomed by the companies, which may feel that their room for manoeuvre is restricted, this is a practical response to a genuine problem. The provisions in the Bill are, in our view, necessary to ensure the continual usefulness of consolidated financial statements. It is also illustrated by the work of the Accounting Standards Committee which has led to the publication of Exposure Draft 42 on special purpose transactions.
I hope that what I have said will put my noble friend's mind slightly more at rest and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I immediately associate myself with everything that the noble Lord has said on this matter. It is absolutely vital that the conclusions reached in the new SSAP 42 are given full effect to. We are satisfied that new Section 260, together with this new section, encompasses exactly that. We sincerely hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
The Earl of Limerick: I am seeking clarification. I was wholly with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the reasoning which led him to prefer the wording in
1022
the Bill to the wording in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. The concept of exercising a dominant influence may be difficult to interpret. If we look at the other phrase which appeared in the second amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was speaking the words "financial and operating policy" occur. Putting the two of those together in relation to subsection (3)(a), a company is in this position if:
"it actually exercises a dominant influence".
This may be in a financial or commercial sense.
Using the old demonology, what is the position of the small supplier to Woolworth's who finds his prices being squeezed and discovers that his commercial policy is very much at the behest of his main or his only customer? Is there perhaps some difficulty in this definition? I am inviting a statement of the origin of the phrase, "it actually exercises a dominant influence". Is it one that is well tested and tried and can we be sure that it has a meaning that is readily interpreted?
Lord Strathclyde: We are returning to amendments which have already been dealt with. The definition of the phrase "the dominant influence", to which my noble friend referred, was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I hope that 1 gave an adequate reply a few minutes ago. My noble friend gave an example of Woolworth, which has no participating interest. Therefore it does not need to be consolidated under this clause.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Perhaps the noble Lord understands why I wish to return to the matter at Report stage. Had the definition been adopted it would have helped the noble Lord in his restriction—and I consider it to be a desirable restriction—on any wider use of the term "dominant".
Lord Mottistone: Although I am grateful to my noble friend for his contribution, I should like to forget the side argument relating to the earlier amendment.
I understand what the Minister said. I am not sure that those who advise me will be as convinced about the validity of every one of his arguments as I may be, so I may return to the issue at a later stage. However, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 33, line 26, leave out ("or controls").
The noble Lord said: The amendment cures a technical defect in the Bill. At present new Section 258(2)(a) applies both in relation to subsection (2)(a) of new Section 257 and to subsection (2)(d) of that section. In practice, it is unnecessary to apply it for the purpose of the latter subsection and in certain circumstances to do so results in ambiguity. The present amendment ensures that the provision will apply only for the purposes of subsection (2)(a). I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 33, line 29, leave out from ("account") to end of line 34 and insert I", that is, shall not he regarded as held by any person or as forming part of the voting rights in the undertaking").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 33, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 34 and insert—
("(4) The right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors means the right to appoint or remove directors holding a majority of the voting rights at meetings of the board; and for this purpose an undertaking shall be treated as having the right to appoint to a directorship if—

(a) a person's appointment to it follows necessarily from his appointment as director of the undertaking, or

(b) the directorship is held by the undertaking itself,

but a right to appoint or remove which is exercisable only with the consent or concurrence of another person shall be left out of account unless no other person has a right to appoint or, as the case may be, remove in relation to that directorship.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which replaces the existing subsection (4) of new Section 258 with a revised version. It has the effect of adding a new case where a putative parent is to be treated as having the right to appoint to a directorship in an undertaking, even though it would not normally be regarded as having such a right. This is where the putative parent can make an appointment to a directorship only with the consent or concurrence of another person, but no one else can make an appointment to that directorship.
If a right to appoint was not to be treated as arising in such a case, purely nominal requirements to seek the consent or concurrence of another person could be introduced into arrangements with the intention of avoiding a parent-subsidiary undertaking arising. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We accept the amendment. We believe that it clarifies the position in the way the noble Lord desires.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 34, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) "Managed on a unified basis" means that the financial and operating policy decisions (including dividend policy) of the undertaking and the subsidiary undertaking are determined as if the two undertakings were a single entity").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to define more closely the meaning of the phrase "managed on a unified basis" which appears in the text of the clause. We suggest the insertion of the following paragraph:
" 'Managed on a unified basis' means that the financial and operating policy decisions (including dividend policy) of the undertaking and the subsidiary undertaking are determined as if the two undertakings were a single entity".,
We propose to insert that paragraph for clarification under subsection (5) in the new Section 257(2)(c). We may have helped the noble Lord on this
1024
occasion but if he does not want our assistance we shall not take that amiss. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: We do not dissent from the general drift of the formulation used by the noble Lord. However, as I explained in the context of the phrase "the dominant influence" in respect of the earlier amendment, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to define the phrases "managed on a unified basis" or "dominant influence" in this context.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I believe that on more mature consideration by the next stage the noble Lord will come round to the views which are set out. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 34, line 23, leave out from ("only") to first ("the") in line 28 and insert ("when the circumstances have arisen, and for so long as they continue to obtain, and when").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 35. line 9, after ("undertaking") insert ("of its").
The noble Lord said: the amendment is tabled for clarification. It makes clear the fact that the subsidiary undertaking referred to at the end of new Section 258(7)(c) is a subsidiary undertaking of the putative subsidiary referred to earlier in that paragraph and not a subsidiary undertaking of the putative parent. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Other interpretation provisions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 167 and 168:
Page 36, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("(3) The reference in subsection (I) to an interest in shares includes").
Page 36, line 38, leave out ("18") and insert ("19").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 en bloc. Amendment No. 167 is a drafting amendment. At present subsection (3) of new Section 260 purports to apply for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section as well as subsection (1). That is not the intention. The amendment ensures that subsection (3) applies only for the purposes of subsection(1).
Amendment No. 168 corrects a wrong reference. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We concur with the amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 36, line 47, after ("company's") insert ("annual").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. New Section 261(2) may quite unintentionally permit to be shown in the notes to the accounts items that should not be shown on the face of the accounts. The amendment removes that doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 37, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert
("(2) References in this Act to a company's annual accounts, or to a balance sheet or profit and loss account, include notes to the accounts giving information which is required by any provision of this Act, and required or allowed by any such provision to be given in a note to company accounts.").
The noble Lord said: This is also a technical amendment and it removes any doubt which previously existed. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: These words present a distinct improvement and we concur with this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 37, line 9, leave out ("provisions not applying to") and insert ("treatment of").
The noble Lord said: This corrects a cross-reference and has no substantive effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 37, leave out lines 28 and 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 38, line 7, at end insert—

("associated undertaking (in Schedule 4A)

paragraph 19 of that Schedule")

The noble Lord said: These amendments make minor corrections to the defined terms in the new Section 263(3) and insert a reference to a further definition into the list. Government and Opposition have tabled two identical amendments. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 38, line 34, column 2, leave out ("260") and insert ("261").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 38, line 37, column 2, leave out ("261") and insert ("260").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments consequential on Part I]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 162, line 23, leave out ("under section 235").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall take Amendments Nos. 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183 and 184 together. These are all minor changes to the schedule of consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: I do not wish to oppose the amendments. However, I ask the noble Lord, when the matter is looked at by parliamentary draftsmen, to look at paragraph 1(2) which has some unusual wording. It states:
"If the balance sheet was prepared for a financial year of the company".
That is not technically correct. The balance sheet is prepared at a date. Perhaps that could be corrected.
Lord Strathclyde: We shall certainly look into that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 162, line 30, at end insert—
("For the purposes of an auditors' report under this subsection the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to apply with such modifications as are necessary by reason of the fact that the balance sheet is not prepared for a financial year of the company.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 163, leave out line 9.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 165, line 21, leave out second ("of') and insert ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 165, line 42, leave out ("received") and insert ("receivable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 166, line 19, leave out ("obligations") and insert ("contributions").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 166, line 46, at end insert—
(" . In paragraph I2(b) of Schedule 4, for "section 238" substitute "section 233".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 169, line 16, at end insert—
("Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (c. 46)
. In section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, for "section 244" substitute "section 242(4)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 39, line 12, at end insert ("Supervision is to be exercised by a statutory bod to which the Secretary of State shall delegate the powers granted to him under this Part.").
The noble Lord said: We now embark on Part II of the Bill and the batting order is somewhat changed. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on the Front Bench and I shall be taking over from my noble friend in order to look after Part II.
Article 2 of the eighth directive makes it clear that the authorities of member states may approve only firms of auditors which satisfy certain conditions; in other words, there is a statutory obligation on member states to introduce legislation which is applicable to their own state to satisfy that provision. At the end of the day, it is the statutory authority which authorises auditors to conduct their business.
We have had a number of consultation documents from the Government on how to implement this. As the Bill demonstrates, the Government have come down on a system which, to us, seems to replicate the system in the original Financial Services Bill. In other words, it has a relatively weak top and a relatively detailed bottom, in the sense of monitoring through the organisations which will be appointed as monitoring agencies— which, for practical purposes, are the various institutes in the United Kingdom.
As we know, in the Financial Services Act that has led to a number of problems. The SIB was a private company—and probably still is for all I know—which was the receiver of a delegation order delegating to it the powers under the Financial Services Act to supervise the financial services system and also to set up and indeed authorise a number of SROs which had rule books which were to be approved by the SIB.
The problem with this structure has been that the delegation of powers has been such that the underlying agencies, the SROs, had to produce enormously detailed rule books in order to comply with the SIB requirement imposed by the statute. At a later stage in this Bill, we shall argue that the SIB should have the power to make general points of principle which do not have the force of law, but SROs will be asked to make their own rule books in a very flexible manner. We shall be arguing, I hope with the support of some Members of the Committee opposite, that the whole system should be stronger at the top and more flexible underneath.
In moving this amendment my concern is that the Government are falling into the same trap as they fell into during our proceedings on the Financial Services Bill when it came before this place in the summer of 1986. There is to be a relatively weak top in the sense that although it is the Secretary of State there is to be no central authority to which the Secretary of State delegates his powers. Underneath there is a mass of regulations about how the bodies chosen to run this part of the Bill—that is,supervisory auditors—are to conduct their business.
I recognise that in this debate I do not have the support of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in
1028
England and Wales or the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. Indeed other institutes have indicated to me that they do not support my amendment. Nevertheless, I believe that I am right in saying that if there is to be a flexible system of monitoring underneath, which I believe some of those institutes want, there should be a strong statutory authority at the top.
In this amendment what I have in mind is not dissimilar from the General Medical Council. I put forward this point on Second Reading. I believe that there should be a statutory body to which the Secretary of State delegates his powers. That body—if I had my choice; but of course it is not mine though it is the way I would argue—should be composed of people who are practitioners and also a number of people who represent those who use the services of accountancy firms, if I may put it that way.
That body would put forward general principles and guidelines to the institutes which are under its general control, and the institutes, if that is what they are and will be, should be able to interpret and monitor those in a relatively flexible way. I believe that if the Secretary of State is left with the power of recognising, or, to use an inelegant word, derecognising supervisory bodies of auditors it will be a recipe for a Financial Services Act type of system because the Secretary of State has only the power that Parliament gives him to make statutory instruments and to decide on and impose statutory rules on the supervisory bodies.
The other point I wish to make is that this part of the Bill gives the Secretary of State the ability to set up such a body. He may exercise that power if he feels that in some way the supervisory bodies are not doing their duties or performing their functions. When on Third Reading of the Financial Services Bill we moved a Motion which would have enabled the Secretary of State optionally to take reserve powers to set up a panel to administer the conduct of takeovers we were told from the Government Benches that, once optional powers are set up for the Secretary of State, in the course of time they will be used. I suppose that the Government are consistent and that if that argument was put forward in the summer of 1986 it will no doubt be supported again by the Government today.
We should like to see a system which, as I said, has something like the General Medical Council—a general accounting council. We should like to see that council given delegated powers from the Secretary of State with the ability to authorise supervisory bodies to operate flexibly underneath. We are worried that the way the Government have approached this whole problem, and the implementation of the directive, will lead to another Financial Services Act. Members of the Committee and those outside will know the problems associated with that. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should like to begin by making a few general remarks about Part 11 of the Bill and the Government's broad approach to the supervision of auditors which I think follow on from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. This is partly because in a Bill which covers such a wide range of matters it is useful to get one's

1029
bearings again as we embark on an entirely new subject and partly because I think it is important to have the whole structure of the part in view in considering the noble Lord's amendment.
As the noble Lord reminded the Committee, the purpose of Part II is to implement the eighth company law directive. Briefly, that directive requires auditors of companies to be approved. It lays down conditions as to their qualifications and provides that only persons of good repute can be approved. It also requires there to be safeguards to ensure that audits are conducted independently and with integrity. Most importantly, it allows professional bodies to he designated as the approving authorities.
In this country we have a long history of public functions being exercised by such self-regulatory bodies. In the accountancy field there has been, under the direction of the major bodies, a progressive improvement in the education and training of accountants and in the standards and guidelines to which they are subject. The high reputation of the accountancy profession and the quality of recruits which it attracts are a testimony to the success of its professional bodies in raising standards. It is imporant that any new supervisory system for auditing builds upon that success and retains the element of self-regulation which has been so crucial to it.
Community law does not, however, allow us simply to designate the professional bodies and leave it at that. Community law requires there to be a system which makes it certain in law that effect will be given to community directives. Part II of the Bill is designed to provide the framework for such a system and to do so in a way which preserves the central role of the professional bodies. The essential feature of the system is that professional bodies are enabled to apply for recognition from the Secretary of State and he is able to consider and determine their applications against criteria which are laid down in the Bill. Noble Lords should note that under the Bill the Secretary of State does not himself approve auditors or make the majority of rules to which they will be subject. As we have heard, he may transfer his functions to a statutory body, but those are not the functions of approving auditors or of drawing up professional rules.
How does this brief description of the purposes and effect of this part of the Bill help us in considering the amendment? The first point to make on the amendment is that this debate is not about whether the profession should be supervised directly by professional bodies, by the Secretary of State or by a statutory body. Under the noble Lord's amendment, as in the Bill as introduced, the function of supervising auditors would rest with recognised supervisory bodies and the function of awarding professional qualifications would rest with recognised qualifying bodies. The functions which would be exercised by the Secretary of State or a statutory body would largely be the functions of recognising the professional bodies and thereafter monitoring them to ensure that they kept up to the requirements in the Bill.
Nor is the debate on this amendment about whether the recognition functions should or should
1030
not be exercised on a statutory basis. Both the Secretary of State and a body set up under Clause 44 would for these purposes be acting under statute and would be exercising statutory powers.
There is therefore no fundamental question of principle dividing us from the noble Lord. This is all the more so because, as had been explained, the Bill already allows for the Secretary of State to set up a stautory body and transfer certain of his functions to it. The issue is therefore the relatively narrow one of whether the Bill should allow the Secretary of State discretion whether or not to transfer his powers, or whether he should he obliged to do so.
I can envisage circumstances in which there could be advantages in the system as a whole being headed up by a new statutory body. We would scarcely be seeking to take power to transfer functions were that not the case. It would allow the involvement of practitioners at the apex of the regulatory structure. Equally, broader interests, particularly the interests of those who make use of auditors and of audited accounts, could be represented.
In addition, the Bill enables the Secretary of State, when transferring his functions under the Bill, to confer supplementary and incidental functions on the body. In other words, the continuing work of supervising the recognised bodies might be exercised alongside other functions. A body might, for example, find itself taking on a more general role as the focus of the profession, perhaps in relation to subjects such as the development of accountancy and auditing standards. Potentially that could be a very significant step. Needless to say, the profession itself would have to be satisfied that it was the right step to take. But it seems wise at least to permit the possibility and that is one reason why the option of transferring functions to a statutory body exists.
However, all this is somewhat speculative. Moreover, it is hardly characteristic of the present Government to set up statutory bodies at the drop of a hat. The functions under the Bill can be exercised by the Secretary of State with the help of his department. The case for transferring them only becomes strong if the statutory body has a distinct role to play. It is not apparent to us that as yet there is such a distinct role; neither does it appear that others concerned with these matters believe that there is.
In considering the regulatory framework for auditors, we consulted, and canvassed the idea in a consultation document that a statutory body might be set up. Although the idea was supported in some quarters it would be fair to say that the larger part of the profession did not welcome the possibility of being governed by a statutory body but preferred to come under the wing of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, acknowledged that fact. Neither was there general support from outside the profession. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not therefore find that there is widespread support for his amendment either inside or outside the profession.
In these circumstances, we are sure that it is right that the functions should be exercised, at least in the first instance, by the Secretary of State. On the other hand, because, as I have explained, we believe that the time may come for a statutory body, we have kept open that possibility for the future. If I may say so,

1031
that seems to combine sound common sense with foresight.
The question arises of whether we will be setting up the statutory body, and, if so, when. The answer is that the case for implementing the permissive power only arises if and when the conditions are right. I believe that we should first give the profession the opportunity to come to terms with the setting up of the new supervisory system, with any decisions which are taken on the restructuring of the accountancy bodies, and with any decisions taken on the way that accountancy standards are enforced, in the wake of the Dearing Report. It may be that in time the profession will find some positive advantages in the setting up of a statutory body to oversee it. That is why we believe that the Bill should allow for that possibility. But I am equally clear that it would be premature to be committed to implementing this option as soon as the Bill takes effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to the comparison with the Financial Services Act. The statutory body has no role in making the rules on the conduct of audit work; neither will it authorise auditors to conduct audits. The position of the SIB under the Financial Services Act is different. The SIB has the power to make the rules and to authorise people to conduct investment business.
Requirements that bodies must meet are set out in Schedules 8 and 9 to the Bill. They are in many cases matters of principle and do not inevitably lead to a legalistic approach in the body's role. I do not necessarily accept the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made of the financial services regulations. I believe the noble Lord also said that if one takes optional powers they will be used, or words to that effect. 1 cannot be responsible for everything said in earlier debates. It depends on the context and the situation. I certainly would not accept that the alleged quotation is true in the present context. In the light of the explanations that I have given I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his exposition of what Part II is about. Generally I agree with his exposition. I am grateful to him for responding to some of the points I made. The Minister is absolutely right in drawing the attention of the Committee to the point that the institutes that are operating in this sector at the moment do not support the amendment that I am moving. Nevertheless, I say to them that if they want (I believe they do) a flexible system of monitoring, it is my belief that that can only be achieved by a statutory body with practitioner participation at the top. Otherwise the noble Lord is going to lead us, as the Bill does, down the path of a very firm Secretary of State with primary legislation and stipulating what is required. Those institutes will then have to monitor on a statutory basis.
I should like to move slightly differently. This is a very important point. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, will later move certain amendments as regards the question of monitoring the burden that is placed on accounting institutes in the Bill. I am
1032
saying indirectly to the noble Lord that I should certainly support those amendments were they put in the context of some strong body at the top which had a kind of practitioner-based SIB role and allowed bodies like the various institutes to perform their role flexibly underneath.
I cannot see how we can have more flexible monitoring by the supervisory bodies underneath without having some arrangement of the kind that I propose in my amendment. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Benson, wishes to comment on what I have said.
Lord Benson: No, thank you.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord does not wish to comment on what I said. Having invited him to do so, I rest my remarks simply where they are. I do not believe that the institutes for which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, speaks will have much joy from this side if they ask for flexible monitoring underneath without a proper regulatory system on top. I take what the noble Lord said. This is a difficult matter. It goes to the heart of Part II of the Bill.
I do not believe that this is the time or the place to do other than study what the noble Lord said. With us it is a point of some importance that at the end of the day there should be a statutory body. The noble Lord indicated that that may come in the future when the institutes fail to do their duty under the Act, as it will then be. We believe that the Government should start out on that basis and then have a flexible system underneath. That is the burden of our dispute with the Government.
Nevertheless, having aired that point at this stage in the Committee, I reserve the right to come back to it in a more definitive manner when we reach the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Eligibility for appointment]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 186 to 188:
Page 39, line 18, leave out ("not").
Page 39. line 19, leave out ("unless") and insert ("only if he").
Page 39, line 20, leave out ("he").
The noble Lord said: These are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 39, line 29, leave out ("appointment as company auditor") and insert ("the appointment").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 190. These amendments clarify the position of partnerships which succeed to the practice of another partnership. As Clause 23(1) makes clear, in order lawfully to be appointed as an auditor of a company, a person must be eligible for the appointment; that is to say, it is not enough for him to be eligible for appointment as a company auditor in a general sense: he must be

1033
eligible for appointment as that company's auditor. A person might, for example, be allowed under the rules of a recognised supervisory body to audit companies, but he might be ineligible for a particular appointment because under Clause 24 he is not independent of that company. The amendments make clear that this is to be the case also for partnerships which succeed to the practice of another partnership. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 39, line 32, leave out ("appointment as company auditor") and insert ("the appointment").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Ineligibility on ground of lack independence]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 39, line 42, at end insert (";
and for this purpose an auditor of a company shall not be regarded as an officer or employee of the company.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 192 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Benson. The government amendment makes clear that an auditor of a company is not to be regarded as an officer or employee of it for the purposes of determining whether a person is to be ineligible for appointment as a company's auditor on the ground that he is such an officer or employee. Obviously to allow any other construction would make nonsense of the restriction in the clause. I hope that our amendment covers the point made by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Benson. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I rise briefly to support the amendment. Perhaps it will be helpful for the Committee to know that the court has decided on several occasions that an auditor is an officer of the court. In those circumstances it is essential to make it clear that, for the purposes of this clause, an auditor shall not be regarded as an officer or employee of the company.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [Effect of ineligibility]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 40, line 20, leave out ("body") and insert ("company").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment which aims at greater precision. Its purpose is to make it clear that "the body" referred to in line 20 on page 40 of the Bill as that to which an auditor must give notice when he vacates office by reason of ineligibility is the company of which he was the auditor. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Power of Secretary of State to require second audit]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 40, line 40, leave out ("company auditor") and insert ("auditor of the company").
The noble Lord said: The amendment establishes that the person who reviews an audit carried out by an ineligible person must himself he eligible to be that company's auditor rather than just eligible to audit companies in a general sense. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Lord explain why we have the new version "auditor of the company" in this amendment while in Amendment No. 196 we have a new version which incorporates the words "company auditor"?.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not certain that I can answer that question straight away. I suspect that the circumstances are different. The company auditor in Amendment No. 196 does not refer to a specific appointment whereas Amendment No. 194 does. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 41, line 20, after ("appointment") and insert (", or continues to act,").
The noble Lord said: There are two circumstances in which a person could wilfully conduct a company audit when ineligible: if he accepted an appointment as auditor when he knew he was ineligible or if he failed to vacate office once he knew he had become ineligible. At present Clause 26 would allow a company to recover its costs in complying with the requirements of the clause from a person who had accepted the appointment knowing he was ineligible but not from one who had, knowing that he had become ineligible, failed to vacate office. The amendment would remedy that defect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Recognition of supervisory body]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 171, line 24, at end insert—
("Provided that, a firm which has ceased to comply with those conditions may be permitted to remain eligible for appointment as a company auditor for a period of not more than three months.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would permit recognised supervisory bodies to give firms a period of grace of three months in which to comply again with the requirements in paragraph 4 of the schedule. The requirements in that paragraph are

1035
drawn from Article 2 of the directive. The article permits the authorities in member states to give a period of grace of up to two years. We have decided that three months would give the right degree of flexibility. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 171, line 35, leave out ("partners") and insert ("voting rights in the partnership are held by").
The noble Lord said: I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 198 and 199. These are purely drafting amendments. No point of principle is involved. They are designed only to get right a small lacuna in the wording. The auditors can he either an incorporated company or a firm. The schedule defines the composition in each case. It also defines how the voting control shall be exercised. Subparagraph (2)(b)(i), which refers to the company, states that the voting rights shall be in a certain way. Subparagraph (2)(c)(i) gives a different form of voting. The latter implies that all partners have the same votes, but they do not. Partners have different votes and very often salaried partners have no votes at all. To put the record straight, it is proposed in the amendment that subparagraph (2)(c)(i) shall say,
"a majority of the voting rights in the partnership are held by".
The rest reads smoothly. I hope that that will be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord is right to say that paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 needs to be amended so that the majority of voting rights in a partnership are held by individuals who hold an appropriate qualification or firms which would be eligible for appointment as a company auditor. However the amendments tabled by the noble Lord are not quite right as they give no definition of the meaning of voting rights in a partnership.
If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 5(2) he will see that we have had to give a definition of voting rights in bodies corporate, and we will similarly have to give a definition in the case of partnerships. In addition, although the amendment recognises quite properly that in order to give effect to the directive we must ensure that, where management of a partnership's affairs is delegated to a group of partners, a majority of those partners must he appropriately qualified or eligible for appointment.
The amendments would not deal adequately with the case in which management of the partnership's affairs had not been delegated. In that case, the "administrative or management body" of the firm would consist of all the partners, and the directive obliges us to ensure that a majority of those fulfil the relevant conditions. If the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendments, in the light of what I have said, I shall undertake to bring forward appropriate government amendments at a later stage.
Lord Benson: I am quite willing to agree to that. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 not moved.]
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Aendment No. 199A:
Page 173, line 25, leave out ("arrangements and").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I should like to take Amendments Nos. 199A to 199D together. They deal with the question of monitoring. It is a question of wording and not so much a point of principle. The present provision in the Bill says that the supervisory body,
"must have adequate arrangements … for the … monitoring … of compliance with its rules".
We read that to mean that before the professional body can apply for membership, or apply to be appointed, it must monitor on a continuous basis all the many thousands of auditing firms and over 100,000 individuals who have the right to carry out audits. Such a proposal would be impracticable.
Professional bodies accept at once that they have an obligation to monitor. Indeed, they go further; they are willing and anxious to use that process in appropriate cases. However, they cannot use it generally over everyone on a continuous basis; it must be used as appropriate. The only purpose of the amendment is to straighten out the wording so that we know exactly what our obligations are. The amendment merely changes the wording to read:
"the body must have adequate resources to monitor compliance with its rules",
which is what it can do and what we wish it to do.
I should perhaps explain to the Committee why it is quite impossible to contemplate a general monitoring service over the whole field. It is estimated that the number of firms which will carry out auditing will be between 10,000 and 20,000. The number of persons who will have the right to carry out audits will be something over 130,000. Therefore it is quite inconceivable that a monitoring service covering the whole of that field on a continuous basis could be possible.
The monitoring of a firm is a difficult job. It always takes days and it may even take weeks. It requires highly skilled and experienced staff; it cannot be delegated to subordinate staff and partners. Monitoring a firm or a collection of persons who are engaged in auditing is quite different from the monitoring required when one sends an inspector into a restaurant to see whether there are cockroaches in the kitchen; it is a very different proposition altogether. What it amounts to is that there are not enough people of the right quality to do the monitoring. Moreover, even if there were, the cost would be wholly prohibitive. I say merely in parenthesis that the cost of auditing for industry is already uncomfortably high and if this requirement were to be imposed on it it would make the cost altogether unacceptable.
Perhaps I may make another point here which I think is most helpful in this respect. Broadly speaking the Bill is designed to give effect to the eighth council directive. There is no demand in that directive for monitoring. I have made inquiries and I am informed that none of the other 11 member states have installed or are intending to install a monitoring process along the lines against which I am protesting. Therefore it

1037
would be unreasonable for this member state alone to be an odd ball under such conditions.
The City and the Government have already discovered the crushing burden under the Financial Services Act 1986 of bureaucracy and supervision. Moreover, during the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State was kind enough to say that he would he careful to avoid that mistake occurring in this Bill. If the words remain in the Bill as they are at present and are interpreted in the way in which I think they must be—which we find unattractive— all
I can say is that the Bill will repeat the same mistake which was made in the Financial Services Act 1986.
I should like to make one further point. Bad auditing—the sort of auditing which must be stoped—is sometimes due to bad procedures but as often as not it is due to an error of judgment. No amount of monitoring today will prevent an error of judgment being made tomorrow.
For all those reasons I hope that the interpretation which I have sought to put before the Committee is the one which will be acceptable and that the interpretation created by the amendment will be accepted.
It remains only for me to add—although I hesitate to do this, but it perhaps rounds off the whole point—that my institute has for 109 years made the highest possible efforts to maintain professional standards. It has done so by education and training; by continuing professional education; by organising seminars up and down the country on every subject which touches our profession all through the year; and by adopting strict disciplinary procedures. Indeed, in that respect the institute is unique.
Of all the professional bodies in the whole world the three big professional bodies in this country are the only ones which have a special disciplinary procedure to deal with matters of public concern which particularly touch the question of auditing. The reports of that disciplinary committee are available to the public for inspection.
Therefore we have the resources to enforce our rules, which is what the schedule provides. We want to monitor where it is appropriate and we have the will to do so; we merely ask that we should not be required to contemplate the monitoring of between 10,000 and 20,000 firms and over 130,000 individuals on a continuous basis, because it is wholly impractical. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Benson, has spoken to Amendments Nos. 199A to 199D together. I should like to follow his example in so doing. The noble Lord put forward a persuasive case for the inability, if I may say so, of the existing institutes to have laid upon them the burden which this schedule implies. Previously I expressed my sympathy with the noble Lord's view. It seems to me that a statutory requirement on the supervisory bodies, which in practice will be the various institutes, to both monitor and enforce compliance of their rules, lays them open to action if they do not so enforce. I sympathise with the noble Lord when he says that the institutes really do not have the resources to carry out that statutory obligation.
1038
Further, I believe that the Bill is wrong in its interpretation of the eighth directive— that it should be the statutory body, as authorised by the Secretary of State, which would carry out the monitoring and enforcement function. I can find nothing in the eighth directive which lays that obligation on the Secretary of State or, indeed, anyone.
When I moved my earlier amendment, I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, that I should be perfectly content with a statutory body at the top which had the monitoring and enforcement obligation, leaving the institutes as the noble Lord, would like them left. I invited the noble Lord to intervene but he refrained from doing so. I said, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, confirmed, that that proposal does not gain the support of the profession. That does not mean it is a bad argument. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in his amendment. I merely say that one cannot have one's cake and eat it. One must either accept the monitoring function as laid down, deriving from statute, or one must accept some form of statutory body which will do that. Those are the two alternatives which the profession must he prepared to accept. I do not care which; but it must be one or the other. I prefer the statutory body.
6 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I too had some difficulty in understanding whether the able presentation of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, covered the problems that he has in mind. I recognise that he has also received—indeed he may have written or edited it—the briefing note on arrangements for monitoring by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I agree with everything he said about the desirability of reducing costs in relation to all these matters. He says that his amendments would do that.
The noble Lord said that the requirements for recognised supervisory bodies to have arrangements for monitoring which appear in Schedule 8(10) under the heading "Monitoring and Enforcement" go beyond the terms of the directive. I am not sure whether that is a difficulty which the Government have in mind. It seems to me, having read the relevant EC directive, that the amendments go beyond the terms of the directive. The Minister may like to indicate why the Government desire to go beyond the terms of the EC directive in this matter.
Further, I am not satisfied that the difficulties of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, with his great experience in these matters, will be alleviated to any extent, even with the amendments.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have no intention of repeating the persuasive arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland fully subscribes to the amendments.
The Earl of Harrowby: I too should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Benson, although I wonder whether the amendments achieve what he has in mind. They still leave him with obligations he does not wish to accept. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that the profession has the option of accepting

1039
one course or the other. That is not true, because it ought to have the option of maintaining the status quo. It performs its function extremely well and adequately. The country has long been indebted to those professions for the way they have performed their duties. I do not understand the need for change.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to say from these Benches, as opposed to a pronouncement from the Government Benches, that the Bill is designed to implement the eighth directive. That means that the present situation cannot continue.
The Earl of Harrowby: It means that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, are in the same position. He has expressed the impossibility of complying with permanent monitoring, which is the present position. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is saying that that is no longer an option, no doubt he is correct. I regard the proposal for permanent monitoring and investigation as totally impractical.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may reply briefly to that point. We must go over to a system which is embodied in law. That is the directive's requirement. My point is that the monitoring of auditors is conducted either by supervisory bodies, which is what the Bill proposes, or by some general statutory body which the Secretary of State will set up and to which he will delegate his powers. I do not see that there is the middle course as described by the noble Lord. There may be one; it escapes me for the moment.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. I watch with considerable concern the suggestion that there should be monitoring of the activities of those supervised by the professional bodies. What does it mean? Monitoring is a positive obligation. How frequently is it to be carried out? By whom? What are the standards to be? How efficient will it be? That of course will depend entirely upon who conducts the monitoring and how frequently it is conducted. I view this proposal as a superimposition of yet another regulatory activity over the actions and work of professionals which requires the fullest justification.
If it is obligatory under the eighth directive that we get into this, then so be it. If not, we should carefully consider whether we do not rely upon the enforcement powers which are available to the profession, together with the standards which have traditionally been set by the various institutes. I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to say whether he considers the wording to be necessary to comply with the directive and, if not, carefully to consider the burdens that the Government would otherwise be imposing upon the professions and, let us never forget, indirectly upon those who use the services of the professions and have to pay for them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I find myself in the embarrassing position of defending the Government,
1040
which is not my job. Of course monitoring is conducted regularly by all the institutes. They know perfectly well what is meant by monitoring. There is no problem. They know the people whom they suspect are not terribly good. In the profession of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, there are people who are known to be good and those who are known to be not so good. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will no doubt sort all that out in time.
I do not see that monitoring itself creates any great problem. I return to the point that either—this is where I join forces with the noble Lord—there is some body to which powers are delegated by the Secretary of State, which conducts the monitoring process, or it is left flexible in the way that the noble Lord implies. At the end of the day the Secretary of State has to enforce the monitoring. The Government are caught in a little bit of a cleft stick, but I do not like to deviate from the basic view that we must implement the directive. In implementing the directive we are moving to a statutory system. We shall support the Government in it because we have to, but within that system there are two choices. I do not think that the Government have thoroughly thought this through. Perhaps the noble Lord will now respond to the noble Lord, Lord Benson.
Lord Chorley: I support the amendments. I speak as an accountant who has been in practice for some 20 years. I doubt whether any accountant in practice would disagree with the general sentiments of paragraph 10 of Schedule 8, that is to say that his professional body must have adequate monitoring arrangements to see that its rules are complied with.
However I suggest there is a need for clarity when this general sentiment is enshrined in statute. A general sentiment is not sufficient guidance and that is what the debate seems to be about. As was said, the general range of what might be construed as effective monitoring is vast. We have heard that there are 10,000 to 20,000 firms involved and over 100,000 practitioners in company audits. I do not think I need to go over the arguments again; they have been fully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and others.
It seems to me that if we are to have effective and efficient monitoring it will need to change and develop in order to deal with changing circumstances. The supervisory body will therefore need to adapt its procedures. It cannot do that if there is a lack of clarity in the scope of the legislation. The apparently innocuous phrase in paragraph 10 will, I believe, be a brake on an efficient and effective audit. It may be that the wording of the amendment to paragraph 10 is not quite right, but it would be nice to hear what the Government have to say, to see whether it strikes a chord with them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting debate on this subject; it is not that I did not wish to reply earlier but many noble Lords wanted to take part. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for some of the remarks he had made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Very regretfully!
6.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We covered the point that the noble Lord was making on the first amendment dealt with this afternoon. In my reply to that amendment I outlined the reasons why we have to do that in order to come into line with the directive, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reinforced just now.
The auditing profession has long been run on a self-regulatory basis and in general standards are very high, as members of the Committee and not least the noble Lord, Lord Benson, have pointed out. We do not expect the Bill to result in major regulatory changes. It will build on existing good practices and ensure that standards continue to remain high at a time when competitive pressures are increasing. The initiative for developing the regulatory regime will remain, as now, with the profession. If one looks at the requirements in Schedule 8 for recognition as a supervisory body, it is apparent that the bodies now recognised under Section 389 of the Companies Act already have rules and practices covering most of the topics listed.
The main areas in which additional regulation may be necessary are, first, procedures for maintaining competence and, secondly, the area on which Members of the Committee have focused—the monitoring and enforcement of compliance with the rules. These are both areas in which the profession has itself already recognised that more needs to be done. Auditors once qualified must keep themselves up to date with changing requirements and methods. Professional bodies need to ensure that standards are maintained. Other countries are already ahead of us in developing ways of achieving this objective through, for example, peer review in the United States or practice review in Canada and Ireland. I do not suggest that these are necessarily the right models for the UK, but the reputation of the UK profession rightly stands high in the world and we must ensure that it remains so.
Turning now to consider more specifically amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, the effect would be to weaken—one might say emasculate—the requirements on a recognised supervisory body's monitoring and enforcement. This might well render nugatory the other requirements imposed on such a body by the Bill and through it on auditors. There is, after all, little point in having rules and requirements if they are not adhered to. if the Committee were to accept these amendments, it would be in the position of saying that these were the standards that it expected auditors to aspire to and achieve, but the Committee was not being serious in saying so. Certainly we do not wish to impose unnecessary burdens on the profession. But it seems to us to be necessary for the integrity of the supervisory system that recognised supervisory bodies have adequate arrangements for monitoring and enforcing compliance, and that the result is that the bodies' rules are effective.
Of course we are determined not only that regulation should be effective, but also that it should be no more onerous than is necessary to secure that objective. I have to say that I had some difficulty in recognising the elaborate and costly system that has
1042
been described this afternoon and the terms of paragraph 10. That paragraph does not say that there has to be a full review of a significant number of audits. Clearly it means that the system should go beyond responding to complaints, but I do not think that spot checks need be too onerous a system or that well-run firms should fear them. It would not be the case that such spot checks would require the questioning of the professional judgment of one auditor by another. What it might well mean is looking at the system of internal controls within a firm for ensuring that the firm complies with the requirements of its professional body.
We shall be continuing to work with the profession to secure that the system of regulation is effective but not over-burdensome. But in our view the wording of paragraph 10 as it is will provide a considerable degree of flexibility in reaching a sensible and balanced conclusion on the arrangements for monitoring and enforcement. It does not need any dilution.
Let me emphasise that we are determined to avoid the dangers of over-regulation. I do not think there is any dispute that auditors should be subject to a satisfactory supervisory system, and of course the eighth directive obliges us to place certain requirements upon auditors. But, as I have explained, the profession's own bodies will be drawing up the detailed rules under the Bill and we expect them to seek to minimise the burden they place on their members.
There is a further part of the Bill to which I should draw the Committee's attention—the competition regime in Schedule 11. This is designed to ensure that the rules are no more anti-competitive than is reasonably justifiable in the light of the purposes of the supervisory system. Particularly burdensome or costly requirements could well fall foul of these provisions.
On the question which a number of noble Lords have raised about whether it is necessary within the eighth directive to have these monitoring arrangements, we are not claiming that the form of our monitoring provisions is required by the eighth directive. But it was foreshadowed in our consultative document. It is not necessary for implementing the directive to use these precise words, but we want to keep the effect sought, which is not to be excessively costly. It is true that many of the directive's requirements are for the most part cast in terms of the standards which must be reached in order for a person first to become qualified and not on the subsequent maintenance of a high standard. We believe that it would be a significant loophole in the system if post qualification standards were allowed to drop and auditors were allowed to let their skills and knowledge become outdated. As regards monitoring and enforcement, I would not accept that the directive makes no requirements. It requires us to have arrangements in place to ensure that only persons of good repute are approved as auditors and that audits are conducted with integrity. We do not think that we could be said to have ensured that audits are conducted with integrity if we do not have arrangements in place to pick up audits which are not so conducted. I should be surprised if Members of the

1043
Committee considered that a person who had allowed his standards to fall so low that he was, for example, incompetent in the conduct of his audit work could be said to be of good repute or to be acting with integrity. The Bill's provisions as to monitoring and enforcement are part of the arrangements we propose to put in place to give effect to those requirements.
I do not believe that a great point of principle arises here, provided it is accepted that monitoring is needed. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, accepted that some form of monitoring was needed. The Government attach importance to some check on a systematic basis of the performance of auditors. We are of course prepared to discuss further with the professional bodies how monitoring can be adequate without imposing excessive costs. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord, Lord Benson, decides what to do with his amendments, I wish to clarify one point. Is the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, ruling out or ruling in the system of peer review that exists in the United States?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I mentioned the system of peer review. We are aware that that is sometimes seen as a bureaucratic and costly system of reviewing a firm's work. However, we do not believe that paragraph 10 requires a system on those lines. As I have said, we would be happy to discuss with the profession its ideas on a possibly less onerous system. Having said that, if the profession came back to us and said that it wanted the peer review system, we would not rule it out. It is not necessary, however, to use that method.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I hope that the profession will advise the Government to rule it out. It gives no satisfaction to firms and very little satisfaction to those who use auditors' services.
The Earl of Harrowby: Before the noble Lord, Lord Benson, replies, I should like to make one point. The Minister used some new words. He referred to "spot checks". Spot checks inevitably mean checking on site. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the amount of management time that is absorbed by audits in their present form. If industry is occasionally to have imposed on it in addition spot checks which would go through the whole procedure again, it would find that totally unacceptable.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: As I listened to what the Minister said, it seemed to me more and more unnecessary for paragraph 10 to be headed: "Monitoring and enforcement". The Institute of Chartered Accountants has stated that the,
"arrangements for monitoring (Schedule 8, paragraph 10) go beyond what the Directive requires".
The institute further states that we shall be the only country that has these supervisory obligations. The Minister referred to the desirability of maintaining the competence of auditors. Paragraph 9 of Schedule
1044
8 deals with that point. The Minister then talked about the discipline that was necessary in order to be afforded membership of the institute. That is dealt with by paragraph 11, which is headed: 'Membership, eligibility and discipline". It states:
"The rules and practices of the body … must be fair and reasonable and include adequate provision for appeals".
If the Minister is going to discuss these matters with the professional bodies, he might consider whether in these circumstances a statutory enforcement as regards monitoring is necessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said, I want to ask the Minister exactly what form the consultations with the profession will take and what their result will be. Will there be a modification to the schedule? Will guidance be given? What will happen as a result of the consultations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have volunteered consultations on the way that monitoring takes place. However, I have not at all said that we will reconsider whether any kind of monitoring should take place. I make that crystal clear to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and to other Members of the Committee. The consultations with the representative bodies will concern how monitoring can be conducted. I doubt whether any change would need to be made in the schedule. The text we have permits a range of outcomes which I hope will be acceptable to the profession. I cannot at the moment see any need for a change in the schedule.
Lord Benson: I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have supported this amendment. It is only necessary for me to comment on the remarks of one Member who gave support; that is, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I detected that his support was conditional on support for another measure which is very close to his heart. I do not think the two are connected at all. I was speaking to the physical problems of monitoring on a huge scale. That interpretation could be put on the Bill. Whether the Secretary of State or another body enforces that control is not relevant to that point.
Peer reviews have been tried in America. Broadly speaking, they are a failure. They do not command the respect of the profession or of the public. They are appallingly expensive and are not to be commended. I hope that we shall never go to that system. We should be able to find something a great deal better, in so far as it is necessary at all.
On the broad question of the amendments, I shall not ask the Committee to divide. It is helpful to know a little of what is in the Government's mind. But I still have not been able to divine from what the Minister has said exactly what the Government have in mind by the use of the words in the Bill. Perhaps they are waiting for the institutes to come and make positive suggestions to them. There seems to be almost an invitation to do so. On the basis that those consultations will go on and that something sensible will emerge, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199B to 199D not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Recognition of professional
qualification]:
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 177, line 15, leave out ("substantial").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has nothing like the same importance as the amendment to which I have just spoken. With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 201. The schedule deals with the training which must be given to an auditor. The present sub-paragraph states that the,
"qualification must be restricted to persons who have completed at least three years' practical training of which a substantial part was spent being trained in company audit work".
We do not question that qualification at all. We are quite content with it. It has been in operation for years. But we do question the meaning of the word "substantial". I raise that point on two grounds. First, as I mentioned on an earlier amendment, the Bill is designed to give effect to the eighth council directive. That directive does not use the word "substantial" at all. It sensibly uses the words inter alia. We did not think inter alia was a very elegant phrase; therefore we suggested the words "in particular". We felt that that was much more satisfactory and entirely in keeping with the eighth council directive. That is why the words "in particular" have been used in Amendment No. 201. We see no reason why this provision should go beyond that.
Further, the difficulty is that Ministers and civil servants change. What may be substantial to one is not substantial to another. It is very difficult to know exactly what is meant by this provision. Therefore we would prefer the words in the amendment to be used instead.
The training of an auditor cannot be almost, wholly or very largely dependent only on company audit work. There must be practical and theoretical training too. That has been the case for years. But there are other aspects of accountancy knowledge which must be dealt with at the same time, such as taxation, management accounting, a knowledge of mercantile law, liquidation and receiverships. All those things are necessary in order to give an auditor a rounded experience so that he is capable of making a balanced judgment. I do not know whether extraneous subjects which have always broadened the tradition of our profession would be disregarded as being part of the company audit experience required. We would be much relieved if the word "substantial" could be removed altogether.
Alternatively, if it is not removed and the amendment is not accepted, perhaps the Government could advise us whether the training that we have conducted for many years and which must be well known to officials in the department is accepted as being satisfactory training in accordance with what is intended by the Bill. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that in considering the present requirements in the Bill relating to practical training one has to bear in mind the purposes of the supervisory system. The system is about ensuring that company auditors are properly trained and equipped for their role arid that they are subject to appropriate rules on such matters as integrity and independence once qualified. It is not about accountancy in a wider sense, and it will be quite open for persons to qualify as, for example, chartered accountants without meeting all the criteria in the Bill.
The Bill requires audit trainees to undergo practical training of at least three years' duration. Not surprisingly, since the Bill is concerned with company auditors, it requires that a substantial part of that period of practical training is spent on being trained in company audit work. If the students were to spend their time being trained on things other than company audit work, one might wonder what the purpose of prescribing the period of practical training is.
Perhaps I could just add that "a substantial part" is not as great a test as might at first be supposed. It does not mean the major part.
However, I have listened carefully to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has made, particularly about training in other fields helping the auditor in his primary task. In the light of the noble Lord's comments, I undertake to look again at the wording of paragraph 6 to see whether any changes would be desirable. I am sure that it would also be useful for officials to speak again to the professional bodies about their concerns. On the basis of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment at this time.
Lord Benson: I am grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Approval of overseas qualifications]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 43, line 9, leave out ("The Secretary of State may declare that").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 202 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 203, 205, 206 and 207, all of which are in my name.
We are now dealing with an interesting clause of the Bill relating to professional qualifications of auditors. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that Clause 28 deals with the "Meaning of 'appropriate qualifications'". There is no reference to the Secretary of State in that clause of the Bill. Clause 29 is entitled:
"Qualifying bodies and recognised professional qualifications".
I have no quarrel with that. The Secretary of State is not mentioned by name.
Turning to Clause 30, in relation to which I have proposed a number of amendments, that clause deals with "Approval of overseas qualifications". In that clause the Secretary of State is brought in to decide about matters relating to the approval of qualifications for persons from overseas wishing to practise in this country. The tenor of all my amendments is to remove the necessity of bringing the Secretary of State into this matter and to leave the decision on the approval of overseas qualifications to the professional institutes and supervisory bodies.
Thus my first amendment deals with subsection (1) of Clause 30, which now says:
"The Secretary of State may declare that persons who—

(a) are qualified to audit accounts under the law of a specified country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or

(b) hold a specified professional qualification in accountancy recognised under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as holding an approved overseas qualification".

My amendment would strike out the words
"the Secretary of State may declare".
Therefore persons who fall under paragraphs (a) and (b) which I have just read should be regarded for the purposes of this part as holding an approved overseas qualification.
I agree that some kind of supervision or arrangement should be introduced to ensure that the person concerned holding those overseas qualifications would be able competently to deal with matters in the United Kingdom.
Turning to subsection (4) of this clause, I again strike out the words:
"The Secretary of State may direct that",
and leave the rest of the subsection, which would then read:
"A person holding an approved overseas qualification shall not be treated as holding an appropriate qualification for the purposes of this Part unless he holds">
—and these are the important words—
"such additional educational qualifications ensuring that such persons have an adequate knowledge of the law and practice in the United Kingdom relevant to the audit of accounts".
By removing, as I have suggested, the entry of the Secretary of State with all his powers into these matters relating to approval of overseas qualifications and leaving them to be dealt with by the professional institutes and supervisory bodies, subsections (2) and (3) become unnecessary. My other amendments require that those subsections be deleted.
It seems to me, in this era when we avoid regulations as much as possible, that the few safeguards in subsection (4) of this clause would be adequate. Not only do persons from abroad have to have their overseas qualifications; they must also have an additional educational qualification ensuring that they have an adequate knowledge of the law and practice in the United Kingdom relevant to the audit of accounts. It is not necessary and not very helpful that the Secretary of State should be brought in to deal with such matters. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I too shall speak to the grouping to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has
1048
referred, with the addition of Amendment No. 204 (which is the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston) and—perhaps with impertinence—to Amendments Nos. 208 and 218.
I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said. In the clause as drafted the Secretary of State has decisive powers to approve or disapprove any auditor. That could be an auditor from a perfectly respectable overseas jurisdiction to which the Secretary of State for one reason or another might take exception.
My problem with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is that I believe that the eighth directive will require the Secretary of State in a member state to give authorisation within the member state. I am therefore concerned—and no doubt the Minister will be able to enlighten us on the point—that the noble Lord's amendment would take us outside the eighth directive.
That is why we put down an amendment, which I agree is somewhat general, which provides that such approval shall not be withheld unreasonably. In other words, we are seeking the same end as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, but we remain within the ambit of the directive. We should like to see some arrangement whereby an auditor from another country who is approved under the recognised procedures in that country should be allowed some form of appeal if the Secretary of State in this country denies him the right to practise here. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I are basically aiming at the same target. I hope very much that the Government will listen to what we have said and respond positively.
Lord Morris: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, put forward a very attractive case. However, I strongly believe that it would be unthinkable for any Secretary of State not to consider very carefully the advice that he receives—and indeed that he ought to seek—from the professions. They are ideally placed to give such advice. They have many relationships with correspondents and firms in other countries and throughout Europe. He should listen and consider very carefully any advice with regard to practice standards.
However, there will undoubtedly be other factors which any responsible government have to take into account because of the movement of labour between countries. There are issues well outside matters of professional practice and standards which the Secretary of State would have to consider most carefully. That is absolutely correct and no doubt why other countries within the EC insisted on broad brush governmental involvement.
For that reason I find the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rather more attractive, though I wonder whether it may put too strong or unreasonable a fetter on the freedom to act of the Secretary of State.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: First, I should like to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, before I turn to the main substance of this amendment. The noble Lord is quite right. The

1049
amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would take us outside the directives. One needs to bear that in mind from the start.
However, there are two pieces of background information which it is worth bearing in mind when considering Clause 30 and these amendments. First, the existing provision on eligibility to audit—Section 389 of the Companies Act 1985—already allows the Secretary of State to authorise foreign nationals on the grounds that they hold a qualification similar to that which is obtained by becoming a member of one of the recognised UK bodies. The section allows the Secretary of State to withhold recognition on the grounds of reciprocity; that is, because the overseas country or territory does not confer a corresponding right on UK-qualified persons to audit accounts in its jurisdiction.
This system has worked well, and a number of overseas qualifications have been recognised. Very broadly, the system in Clause 30 would operate on similar lines. One difference is that under the current system foreign nationals do not need to demonstrate a knowledge of UK law and practice.
The other piece of background information is what the directive allows and requires us to do. The relevant provision is Article 11. This article allows the authorities in a member state to approve persons who have qualified in another country if they wish. I am sure the Committee will understand why we have exercised that option. Apart from anything else, UK auditors could hardly expect to operate overseas if we were not prepared to let holders of overseas qualifications work here, subject to their being of the appropriate standard.
It is on the question of appropriate standards that the article makes requirements of the UK. It provides, among other things, that if the authorities in a member state exercise the option to approve holders of overseas qualifications they may only approve them if they consider the qualifications equivalent to those required in that member state in accordance with the directive. This is the purpose of giving the Secretary of State a discretion whether or not to approve overseas qualifications, and requiring him to be satisfied that they afford an assurance of professional competence which is equivalent to that afforded by a recognised professional qualification. I must therefore tell the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that the main effect of his amendments would be contrary to the UK's obligations under the directive. In fact, I have already said that.
Article 11 also provides that before a person holding an overseas qualification can be approved he must have furnished proof of the legal knowledge required in that member state for the purpose of auditing company accounts. The article allows member states to waive that requirement if they consider legal knowledge obtained in other states to be sufficient.
Subsection (4) of the clause implements these provisions of the article. I appreciate that the article allows a member state to insist that overseas persons furnish proof of their knowledge of local law, and that that is the effect of one of the noble Lord's amendments; but I hope that he can be persuaded
1050
that the Secretary of State should be allowed a little discretion in this area.
It is true that overseas law and practice can be different from that in the UK, and it can therefore be expected that the Secretary of State will in general require holders of a recognised overseas qualification to obtain an additional educational qualification. However, there may well be cases where such further qualifications are unnecessary. For example, law and practice in the UK and the Republic of Ireland have, for historical reasons, developed along similar lines, and that may be an example of a case in which the Secretary of State would wish to consider the possibility of not requiring additional educational qualifications. Of course, this is hypothetical. I cannot anticipate what decisions the Secretary of State may make in a particular case.
Turning to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I can assure the noble Lord, and indeed my noble friend Lord Morris, that the Secretary of State will be subject to the normal constraints of administrative law in exercising this discretion. This means that if he were to act unreasonably in refusing to recognise an overseas qualification he would be subject to judicial review. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is therefore superfluous.
Finally, the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 208 and 218, would allow the Secretary of State to withdraw his approval of an overseas qualification on the same grounds of inadequate standards and lack of reciprocity as those on which he would initally have been able to refuse to grant approval. This blocks an obvious loophole in the system. If functions under the clause were to become exercisable by a body established under Clause 44, it would, before exercising the power to withdraw approval on the grounds of a lack of reciprocity, have to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State—just as it would have to do if it were minded to refuse recognition on those grounds.
Perhaps I may now answer two other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. The first concerned delegating to regulatory bodies. I think that the reciprocity power in Clause 30(3) cannot be delegated to a private sector body. Under Section 44 even a statutory body has to seek the Secretary of State's consent to refusing to approve overseas qualifications on grounds of lack of reciprocity. But—and this was a point made by my noble friend Lord Morris—the Secretary of State will probably wish to take advice from bodies about the quality of a particular overseas qualification.
I hope that after hearing the explanation I have given the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will feel able to withdraw his amendments and that the Committee will accept the two government amendments when we come to them.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for his careful presentation of the position. I was fully aware of Article 3 of this directive, which states that,
"The authorities of a member state"—

1051
and of course the authorities of a member state in the case of the United Kingdom would no doubt be the Secretary of State—
"shall grant approval only to persons of good repute".
That will create a lot of trouble. if the Government take the position that the Secretary of State must be brought into these proceedings because of this directive—and I appreciate that this is not a hurdle that could not be overcome—it seems to me, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has pointed out, that it should be necessary to have embodied in this Bill some kind of procedure for appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State.
In his remarks the noble Lord referred rather loosely and graciously to the fact that anybody who did not agree with the Secretary of State could go to the High Court on what is known as a judicial review. A much simpler and less expensive technique should be adopted to enable any overseas person who feels that he qualifies to operate or practise in this country to have a right of appeal before a much cheaper tribunal. Tribunals now exist where that person could appear. The Act should embody a right of appeal; the position should not be left broadly that the laws of this country will enable anyone to have a judicial review. A simple and straightforward appeal should be possible from the decision of the Secretary of State.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wishes to say more but I should like to know from the Minister, if he asks me to withdraw my amendment, whether he is in sympathy with having an appeal procedure.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is a new point not covered by the amendments, I think I am right in saying. Therefore we would have to give consideration to it. I undertake to give consideration, obviously without commitment at this stage, as to whether it is a good thing or not.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With respect to the noble Lord, this is not a new point: we have been discussing it for the last 19 minutes. What actually happens if the Secretary of State decides that someone with qualifications in another country is not fit to conduct an audit in this country? What mechanism is there for that decision, and hence what mechanism is there for the appeal?
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in being somewhat distrustful of the judicial review procedure. It is expensive; it is unreliable; it is long; and the judge will take a view on what a reasonable Secretary of State could have done in reasonable circumstances at any reasonable time; not on what this Secretary of State has done in the case he is reviewing.
The amendment I have tabled, Amendment No. 204, lays the burden of proof in the event of refusal of qualification in the United Kingdom fairly and squarely on the Secretary of State. The amendment seems to me to embody an appeal procedure. If the aggrieved party decides that the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably he can go to the court and say
1052
so. The noble Lord says that this is superfluous. If it is superfluous, why not have it on the face of the Bill? It would make so much more sense for those people who have to operate the legislation: the laymen, people living in France, Germany, Spain or wherever it may be. They need to know where they are; they will not be reading the noble Lord's explanations of what the Government have in mind. As we know perfectly well, the noble Lord's explanation as to what the statute says has no relevance whatever to how the courts will construe it.
Lord Morris: I am sure the noble Lord had no intention of trying to mislead the Committee. But, surely, if his amendment were carried, the burden of demonstrating that the Secretary of State had been unreasonable in withholding his approval would lie with the appellant or the plaintiff and not with the Secretary of State. I may be wrong; I am no lawyer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I certainly did not mean to mislead the Committee in any way whatever. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the point he has made. I am trying to make precise the conditions under which the Secretary of State has to operate when giving his approval or non-approval and what recourse an aggrieved party has.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure that there is a great deal I can add. On the question of appeal, we think that formal appeal procedures would become bureaucratic and that United Kingdom nationals would not necessarily benefit from comparable arrangements overseas. However, this is not a fundamental sticking point. I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that we shall look at this appeal procedure in the light of the discussion we have had.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. This is rather an important point. As the noble Lord rightly says, our own professionals, especially after 1992, will want to carry out their practices in other countries. And, naturally, we want the amount of reciprocity which the noble Lord very fairly said was one of the considerations in the Government's minds.
I am not quite sure that I understand the noble Lord's reasoning when he says that the words "not to be unreasonably withheld" should not take their place on the face of the Bill. He said that the Minister should not act unreasonably. If there is no appeal procedure set down in the Bill, it means that the Minister's discretion, as I understand it, will be a paramount consideration. If he decides that he does not think professional people coming from X land really come up to the standard he himself likes, he refuses the application.
Must there not be an onus, expressly stated in the Bill, in order that those of foreign nationality may see exactly where they stand and requiring that recognition—and we recognise it on the face of the Bill—must be reasonably reached by the Secretary of State? Is there any reason why the Secretary of State should not go even further and state his reasons for refusing the permission? It can be properly argued, I

1053
should have thought, that this is one of those occasions when the Minister could concede (without its ruffling anyone wherever they may be, in his department) that the permission to practise should not be unreasonably withheld, as my noble friend has asked.
If, in addition, as he very courteously said to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, he would like to look into the possibility of an appeals procedure, so be it. But let us not leave this clause without the words suggested by my noble friend being on it, at all events at this stage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I understand the noble Lord's point about clarification. However, in framing any particular law, we must remember that the law is a seamless web. If we, so to speak, clarify the law here, we potentially call into question provisions made elsewhere which are intended to have the same effect—that a Secretary of State's discretion be exercised reasonably—but which do not contain the clarification. Such a calling into question. I submit, would become undesirable. However, as I have said, I have agreed to look at this point and I honestly do not feel I can go any further.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his intervention, which has been most helpful in clarifying the situation. I am also grateful to other Members of the Committee who have spoken on this amendment, as well as to the Minister for having said that he will look into the question of appeal in connection with the clause as it now stands. Will the Minister write to me about it? I understand from his nod that he will indeed write, conveying the Government's position in regard to the aspect of appeal. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203 to 207 not moved.,]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 43, line 36, at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit, having regard to the considerations mentioned in subsections (2) and (3), withdraw his approval of an overseas qualification in relation to persons becoming qualified as mentioned in subsection (1)(a), or obtaining such a qualification as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b), after such date as he may specify.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Eligibility of individuals retaining only 1967 Act authorisation]:
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 43, line 43, leave out ("quoted") and insert ("listed").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 209, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. With it, for the convenience of
1054
the Committee, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 210, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. I am not entirely certain what the noble Lord will say about that amendment, but I will try to guess.
Our amendment is really quite simple. It is trying to bring up to date the language in the Bill. Nowadays we talk about listed securities rather than quoted securities. It seems that the Bill has slipped back again into the old language. There may be reasons for that which the noble Lord will be able to explain to us, but at the moment we cannot see them.
Amendment No. 210 addresses a slightly different point. Instead of the word "quoted", or "listed" as we suggested, the Government are producing the word "offered". Therefore I imagine that they include in that securities on the unlisted securities market. We discussed that earlier today and, if that is the case—I am trying to anticipate what the noble Lord is going to say in support of the Government's amendment—I suspect that the Government's wording is rather better than ours and that it should be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord's amendment would substitute the word "listed" for "quoted" in relation to the shares of an unquoted company or its parent or subsidiary. I appreciate that "listed" is the more modern term, but I fear that the noble Lord's terminology has the effect of extending the number of companies that persons retaining a 1967 Act authorisation may audit. That is because, if the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, they would be able to audit firms quoted on, for example, the unlisted securities market.
The directive allows us to give grandfather rights to those with an existing right to audit, and we have exercised that option. But we think we would be on dangerous ground if we were to extend the rights of those with a restricted qualification, which is the effect of the noble Lord's amendment. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press it.
The government amendment, however, adds some words which were accidentally omitted when earlier enactments were consolidated in the Companies Act 1985. The amendment has the effect of reflecting the scope of the eligibility granted by Section 13 of the Companies Act 1967, so that it does not cover a company whose shares were offered in Great Britain or elsewhere, just as it does not cover a company whose shares were quoted on a stock exchange in Great Britain or elsewhere. I hope that that explanation is satisfactory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I take the noble Lord's point about our amendment and I shall not press it. I can only express some surprise that the wording in the Companies Act 1985 which was erroneously included on consolidation has subsisted to this day without any challenge. That seems a rather extraordinary phenomenon. Nevertheless, I accept what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 43, line 44, after ("elsewhere)") insert ("or offered (whether in Great Britain or elsewhere)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [The register of auditors]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("jointly").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 211, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston.
We come to a rather difficult matter here—the register of auditors. Under the Bill as drafted, recognised supervisory bodies are required jointly to maintain a register of individuals and firms who are eligible under their rules, and there are various requirements for each person's entry in the clause that we are now discussing.
Certain of our advisers have expressed the view that a joint register might prove extremely difficult in practice for the various supervisory bodies to implement. I am told that it is difficult enough even to keep a register of members of a particular institute without having to ask other institutes to pool their list of members.
I move this amendment on advice because I am not a member of an institute and, having discussed this Bill for a period of time, I do not propose to attempt to become a member of an institute or an auditor because I think the burden would be too great for me to carry. I am advised that "jointly" creates a practical problem, and I can see no particular reason why there should not be individual lists kept by individual supervisory bodies. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: The professional body on behalf of which I speak would very much like the word "jointly" to be removed, since that is likely to lead to administrative difficulty. I support the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Our purpose in providing that the responsibility to maintain the register should be a joint one was to ensure that the responsibility was properly discharged. Article 28 of the directive requires the names and addresses of persons who are eligible for appointment as auditors to be available to the public. It seems to us that to meet that requirement a person should be able at least to go to one place and be shown there a complete list of eligible persons. That objective obviously becomes more difficult in circumstances in which, naturally enough, there may be more than one recognised supervisory body, but we do not wish to create a further tier of bureaucratic responsibility just for the register. We therefore intend that the bodies should be under a joint responsibility to maintain a single centralised register. We believe that recognised bodies should be capable of so organising themselves
1056
that they are capable of discharging the responsibility jointly.
Because it would appear to allow recognised supervisory bodies to maintain separate, incomplete registers, the noble Lord's amendment would appear to be incompatible with the requirements of Article 28. However, having said that, and in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has supported the amendment, I think it would be only right if I were to take another look at the wording to see it we can go some way to meet the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. If I may say so—I hope his advisers and officials will agree—I do not think that accepting my amendment as it is would be in contravention or lead to contravention of Article 28(1) of the eighth directive, but that is for the Government to decide. In the meantime I am grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 44, line 13, leave out ("carry out") and insert ("are responsible for").
The noble Lord said: It is quite common for some of the day-to-day work involved in conducting audits to be carried out by untrained people under the supervision of qualified persons who take responsibility for their work. The amendment clarifies the point, as elsewhere in the Bill, that every individual involved in an audit need not himself hold an appropriate qualification. It is rather the person responsible for the audit who must be so qualified and must be included in the register. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 (Information about firms to be available to public):
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.213:
Page 44, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) For this purpose a person's "address" means—

(a) in the case of an individual, his usual residential or business address:

(b) in the case of a body corporate or Scottish firm, its registered or principal office in Great Britain.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes clear that people may, if they wish, give their business address rather than their home address for the purposes of information that a recognised supervisory body must make available to the public on the firms eligible for appointment as a company auditor under its rules. This was a point which the professional bodies asked us to take on board. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Power to call for information]:
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have a problem with Clause 35. It is very widely drafted indeed. As far as I can see, the Secretary of State can require any institute to give him any information as long as he can demonstrate that it is for the purposes of this part of the Act, as it will then be. As we have already established, this part is extremely wide and be could ask an institute reasonably for justification for a German, or indeed a Russian, auditor or anything else. Secondly, he may require that information to be given to him in the timescale, at the moment and in the place that he specifies. I am not trying to quarrel with the need for the Secretary of State to have the ability to call for the information, but does the clause have to be drafted quite so widely? Are we not as a Chamber of Parliament under some obligation to make sure that the Secretary of State's—the executive's—powers are in some way qualified so that he cannot simply say "I want this, that and thus to be delivered to my office in 24 hours" and that is the end of it. He has the statute to back it. That is the burden of my complaint about Clause 35.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I entirely agree with the presentation and the views of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that Clause 35 is widely drafted. I go further than the noble Lord and say that in the circumstances of Clause 34 this clause is totally unnecessary. The previous clause reads:
"The Secretary of State may require a recognised supervisory or qualifying body —

(a) to notify him forthwith of the occurrence of such events as he may specify in writing and to give him such information in respect of those events as is so specified;

(b) to give him, at such times or in respect of such periods as he may specify in writing. such information as is so specified".

Subsection (2) presses the matter further:
"The notices and information required to be given shall be such as the Secretary of State may reasonably require for the exercise of his functions under this Part".
In reading the subsections of Clause 34, I cannot see why it is necessary to have this mandatory extra clause, Clause 35.
Whenever I read a Bill I am always seeking an opportunity of striking out part of it to save space and the time of lawyers having to construct another clause. I fear that Clause 35 is widely drafted and in my view is totally unnecessary in the circumstances of the previous clause.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I can see the concern of the noble Lords who have just spoken, but at the same time I am slightly reassured by the content, which says that "reasonably" is the important term here:
"as he may reasonably require for the exercise of his functions"—
and in subsection (2):
"within such reasonable time".
I should have thought that that might allay the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, because he feared that the Secretary of State may demand something within a somewhat unreasonable timetable. We have to incorporate into the Bill and emphasise the Secretary of State's powers. He must have the authority. It must be in the Bill and I should have thought that the word "reasonable" might be reassuring.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, indicated, this clause supplements Clause 34. That clause enables the Secretary of State to require a recognised supervisory or qualifying body to provide on a regular basis or in relation to predetermined events information which he may reasonably require for the exercise of his functions under this part of the Bill. This power could be used to require notification of the occurrence of specific events—for example, perhaps a change in the curriculum for a training course—or it could be used to require periodic reports on, for example, the operation of the disciplinary proceedings.
What the Secretary of State could not do under Clause 34 would be to make an ad hoc request for information. This is the purpose of Clause 35. Naturally he can only ask for information relevant to the exercise of his functions, but it is easy to think of examples in which he might need to use this power. For instance, the European Commission might complain that some action that a recognised body had taken was contrary to the requirements of the eighth directive. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene in such circumstances, but before doing so he would probably wish to find out from the body what it had done and the reasons for it. This clause gives him the power to do so. It is a necessary part of the machinery.
I can assure the Committee that my noble friend the Secretary of State has no intention of using the power to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of a recognised body. In practice, I would expect the power to be used very rarely. Normally if the Secretary of State were concerned about something, an informal request would give him the information he wanted. But he must be able to insist if necessary. There may be occasions on which a recognised body prefers to have a formal request, perhaps because it is being asked to disclose confidential information about a person's affairs. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, pointed out, there is a safeguard against excessive intervention in that the Secretary of State can ask only for information which he may "reasonably require" for the exercise of his functions. These functions are essentially supervisory and do not give him any right to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of a recognised body except in strictly limited circumstances. I do not think that the Committee need fear that this power will prove to be unduly onerous or bureaucratic.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be content for this clause to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the Minister for that personal explanation, but may I point out not only to the Minister but to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the word "reasonably" appears in Clause 34(2):
"The notices and information required to be given stall be such as the Secretary of State may reasonably require for the exercise of his functions under this Part".
Clause 35, which it is suggested should be deleted, repeats almost these same words:
"The Secretary of State may by notice in writing require … to give him such information as he may reasonably require for the exercise of his functions under this Part".

1059
It is a complete repetition of the powers that the Secretary of State can enforce. Clause 35(2) does not carry the matter any further and in my view the clause is totally unnecessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I believe the provision is both offensive and unnecessary, but if the Government wish to put it in their Bill, for the moment I am prepared to leave it there and not to divide the Committee. But we may revert to that at a later stage.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Duty to use the title "registered auditor"]:
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 46, line 26, leave out ("his") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: This is a trifling point. I hope that it will not take more than a minute or two of the Committee's time. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that if an individual or firm is appointed as auditor, the words "registered auditor" shall be added under the name. As the Bill stands the words "registered auditor" are likely to appear when an individual signs but not a firm. The matter is easily disposed of by substituting the word "the" for "his". It is a straightforward amendment; I hope that it is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Amendment No. 214 would not seem to have the effect that the noble Lord seeks in that new Section 235A of the Companies Act 1985 which is inserted by Clause 9 of the present Bill appears to require the signature on the audit report to be that of the individual auditor responsible. However, I am sympathetic to the noble Lord's point that auditors should be able to sign the name of their firm on company audit reports. We shall be making a suitable amendment to Clause 9 at a later stage of the Bill's passage and shall deal with the consequential amendment in Clause 35 at the same time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the Minister clarify his attitude to Amendment No. 215, if indeed the noble Lord, Lord Benson. was speaking to that amendment'?
Lord Benson: I appear to have been drawn into something which I do not follow. I was speaking only to the word "the" in line 26 on page 46.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise to the noble Lord. In the groupings list Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 appear together. I thought that the noble Lord was following the list but I now understand that he was not.
Lord Benson: The Minister has undertaken to make changes as appropriate and that is fully acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 46, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the position where an auditor signs his name but fails to put underneath the words "registered auditor". If that frightful crime is committed he can be fined or sent to gaol for six months. One has the impression of a bulldozer rushing down Whitehall in order to crack a hazelnut in Parliament Square. Auditors will want to put the words "registered auditor" after their name. If they do not it will be entirely inadvertent.
The provision of sending someone to gaol for such a little peccadillo is quite out of keeping. The professional bodies have staunch disciplinary arrangements: that is the kind of little peccadillo with which they deal easily and naturally. To labour the subject with a potential six-month gaol sentence and a fine appears to be out of all proportion. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord's amendment addresses the subject of my opposition to the Question that Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill. Therefore I shall speak to the noble Lord's amendment and, at the same time. assure the Minister that if he gives a satisfactory response I shall not oppose the question that the clause shall stand part.
I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has said. I believe that if a person forgets to put the words "registered auditor" after his name it is monstrous that he should find himself locked up in Wormwood Scrubs for a term not exceeding six months. It is ludicrous to make that a criminal offence.
I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. I fully accept that under the directive there must be an indication that an auditor who is auditing accounts should be properly qualified and that the public should see that. Nevertheless, to impose a criminal penalty on what may be a slip appears to be going too far.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I too take the view that subsection (2) is too draconian and that it should be eliminated.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have a good deal of sympathy for the noble Lord's comments on Amendment No. 215. On reflection, we agree that the penalty in the clause is excessive. However, rather than leave the offence in the domain of the criminal law, as the noble Lord's amendment would still do, we propose to take it out of that sphere and instead place a requirement on recognised supervisory bodies that they have rules for securing that auditors use the description "registered auditor" when signing company audit reports. Breach of these rules would then be a matter for the body's disciplinary procedures.
We shall bring forward amendments at a later stage, and I hope that the proposed change will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Benson: The proposal is acceptable.I withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [False and misleading statements]:
Lord Brahazon of Tara Lord Brahazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 47, line 10, after ("(2)") insert ("or (3)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects an anomaly. Subsections (2) and (3) of this clause deal with the offences of giving misleading statements by, respectively, persons who are not registered auditors and persons who are not recognised bodies. The clause as introduced makes provision for the appropriate maximum line for a public display of the offending description in the first case but not the second case. The amendment remedies that defect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40, 41, 42 and 43 agreed to.
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 217:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption from liability for damages.
. Neither a recognised supervisory body nor any of its officers or servants or members of its governing body or committees shall be liable in damages for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of any functions arising out of or relating to this Part unless the act or omission is shown to have been in had faith.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment comes forward at an awkward time because it deals with a subject upon which I should like to speak at length. It is of immense importance to the accountancy profession. I am sorry if I delay Members of the Committee from going to dinner.
The question of immunity, as set out in the amendment, is of profound importance. I raised it at Second Reading and the Secretary of State undertook to give the matter most careful consideration. I hope that his consideration has been fruitful.
Under the Financial Services Act the self-regulatory bodies have immunity from litigation in respect of possible defects in carrying out the supervisory role imposed by the Government. That was a perfectly proper immunity to grant. It was explained with great care in another place by Mr. Michael Howard on 11th June, 1986. The professional bodies must now seek to become supervisory bodies but they are not given immunity. That unfairness, which is damaging to them in other respects, is the subject of the amendment.
The matter was debated during the passage of the Financial Services Bill. I believe that there were only two reasons for not granting immunity to the professional bodies. The first reason was that the supervision of investments was only an incidental part of an accountant's practice. For that reason it was improper to give immunity. That was a bad argument but it does not arise now because auditing
1062
is the mainstream of a professional accountant's office. That argument has been destroyed.
The second reason was that accountants have never before wanted the immunity so why should they be given it now? The answer is that they have never wanted it before because they did not need it. The relationship between the council of an institute and the individual members is such that in law we are advised that there is no right of action against the council in respect of negligence by a member. I shall later explain what happens in practice. Therefore, any actions against a member cannot embrace the institute. I am sure that the advice which we have received in law is accurate because we have been in existence for 109 years and according to my information no action has ever been brought against the council in respect of negligence by a member, so that argument also falls to the ground.
Perhaps I may now explain why it is very important that immunity should be granted. I do not know whether this is generally known, but claims against auditors for bad and negligent work at any one moment in time never amount to less than £100 million and are probably a great deal more at times. Members of the Committee may wonder why that is.Whenever a company goes into liquidation or folds up, the creditors, shareholders and liquidators all look for somebody to sue. They do not sue the directors because usually they are not worth suing. Therefore, they embrace the auditors in the hope of scavenging something out of the indemnity policies which all firms of auditors have to carry.
That is exactly what will now happen. Every time there is a claim against a firm of auditors one may be sure that the litigants will join the supervisory body as part of their claim and we shall be subject to enormous claims for damages and a huge waste of time and cost. The legal advice which we have taken, which is the best we can procure in London, confirms that that is what is likely to happen. Therefore, we are exposed to these enormous risks by the Government imposing upon us a supervisory role. What happens in practice at present is entirely changed by reason of the provisions of this Bill. That is the basic reason why the amendment should be accepted.
The risks which I have just explained will be exacerbated because litigants who always look for every loophole will notice that the supervisory bodies under the Financial Services Act have immunity but the professional bodies do not. That will immediately alert them to the fact that there is a fruitful source of litigation in the hope that they can pursue claims against people who they hope will he able to produce the cash which they are seeking.
I do not believe that I am exaggerating this because people will not serve on a supervisory body if they are exposed to those enormous risks. I speak from practical experience. Eight years ago the three professional bodies set up a particular disciplinary body in order to look at matters of public concern and I was appointed chairman of the executive committee. I could not persuade people to serve on that executive committee until they had been assured that they would not be subject to claims of this character. The risks were very small in that case and nothing like the risks of which I now speak. They

1063
were trilling in comparison. However, I had to arrange for a special policy at Lloyd's to be written to cover the executive committee before members were persuaded to sit on the committee. Members of the Committee will therefore see how real the problem is.
Members of the Committee will ask whether the risk can be covered by insurance. There is no possibility of that. Any large firm of accountants has to take out an insurance policy, the cost of which runs deep into six figures for each of the large firms. In this case, if there is a supervisory body, one would have to have a policy to cover every claim against every firm of auditors. Even if such a policy could be written, which I am sure is not possible, the cost would be absolutely out of the question.
On those grounds, it seems to me that it is wholly logical, proper and fair that we should be given the same immunity as provided under the Financial Services Act. I also raise this point for consideration. If people cannot be persuaded to serve on a supervisory body because of risks which will destroy their livelihood overnight, not because they have done anything wrong but simply because they are carrying out a supervisory role, the Government will have to set up a supervisory body to enable the profession to continue. One may be sure that under those conditions the supervisory body will be given immunity so that that which I am asking for would be met under those conditions but is not met at present.
Perhaps I may make it absolutely plain that we are not asking for immunity from negligence. Negligence by any member, either in carrying out his work, in auditing or in any other way, remains exactly as it was. We are merely asking for indemnity against the supervisory role which was forced on us reluctantly by the Government. We merely wish to be put on the same basis as the supervisory bodies in the Financial Services Act.
I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that when this was debated on Second Reading there was support for it on many sides of the House. The professional bodies feel very strongly about it and I believe that we have support from a great many other sources. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind when he replies. Finally, the wording of the amendment is copied precisely from the Financial Services Act, subject to a trifling amendment about committees which is of no importance one way or the other. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Benson. In his absence in Hong Kong it fell on my shoulders unsuccessfully to move a similar amendment during the passage of the Financial Services Bill which was lost by a very narrow margin. I believe that the argument was won in the debate during the passage of the Financial Services Bill but was lost in the Division Lobby. The noble Lord has advanced the argument and there is no special argument that I can introduce as a corollary to the argument which has been so well presented by him, but I should like to record my most enthusiastic support.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are all grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Benson, for setting out his point of view so clearly and convincingly. From what my noble friend Lord Peston said on Second Reading, I believe that Members of the Committee will be aware that we support the case put forward by the noble Lord and we hope that the rather delicate balance which was struck on immunities when the Financial Services Act was before your Lordships' House and which was the subject of a great deal of argument will be reflected in this new Bill. In these circumstances, the supervisory bodies will be performing exactly the same role as the SROs under the Financial Services Act and should have the same rights and privileges as well as the same duties. Logic demands that the Government accede to that which the noble Lord asks.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has said, and support the amendment. If the Bar is to work under contingency fees, the danger is that the position indicated by him may be far worse.
Lord Chorley: I should also like to support the amendment. Had I been able to be present at the Second Reading debate, I should have spoken on the subject of this amendment. I believe that is by far and away the most important point which remains to be dealt with in Part II of the Bill. It is vital for the effective regulation of my profession that this amendment is passed because it supplies the missing keystone in the whole paraphernalia of regulation. 1 do not cavil at Schedule 8 and its related schedules and clauses, but without this amendment the whole business of effective regulation will be put in jeopardy.
I believe that it is common ground that after the passage of this Bill the RSBs will be faced with having to take decisions under the shadow of threatened litigation, and that may, and indeed probably will, work against the public interest, and the public interest should surely be the sole criterion on which the regulation should be based.
The noble Lord referred to the current scale of litigation, the number of cases and the huge sums of money involved. Not only did we discuss this, as has been mentioned, during the passage of the Financial Services Act but also in a debate we had on professional negligence. In that respect 1 am glad that the Government were sufficiently concerned to set up an investigation following that debate.
The noble Lord has rehearsed all the arguments on why this amendment is essential. I need say no more except to reiterate that it is by far and away the most important amendment to Part II of the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I hope the Minister will be in a position to respond acceptably and briefly to the points made so persuasively. The suggested drafting is of course a short version of Section 187 of the Financial Services Act. As has been pointed out, the SIB and the SROs already have an immunity and it would appear to be inconsistent if that principle is not applied for the new supervisory bodies.

1065
I said earlier that I spoke on behalf of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. On this occasion I can also add the Law Society of Scotland, which strongly supports the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have listened very carefully to the points raised from all sides of the Committee and a number of good points were made in support of the case for conferring immunity from liability in damages on recognised supervisory bodies. If regulation is to be effective regulators need to be able to move swiftly and decisively, sometimes on less than conclusive evidence, if it seems necessary to do so. However, their financial resources will often be smaller than those of people affected by their actions, and there may be a risk that the prospect of large claims for damages would deter a regulator from taking the actions it believes to be necessary.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord. Lord Benson, said, it may be true that individuals will he reluctant to work for or serve on the governing bodies or regulatory bodies if there was a risk of a personal liability in damages for actions undertaken in good faith. Regulatory bodies need to employ people of high calibre and anything which would deter such people from joining may reduce the effectiveness of the regulatory body. As has been pointed out, in a number of other cases it has been found necessary to grant such immunity to regulatory bodies. Certainly we intend that the supervisory system established under this Bill should be effective.
However, I ask the Committee to pause a moment before supporting the new clause. Indeed, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will agree to withdraw his new clause, at least for the time being. What we are concerned with here is the taking away of an important protection in law; the right of a person who has suffered because of some error or omission by another to go to law to seek damages. This right cannot be sacrosanct. As I have said, in a number of other cases the right has been curtailed, to varying degrees, in respect of some regulatory bodies; but the right is so important that one ought not to take it away without very careful thought and consideration. One would have to consider very carefully the degree to which the effectiveness of the regulatory system would be undermined and the possibility of perhaps limiting the immunity to the least degree that is necessary.
Some of the professional bodies have now come to us with a reasoned case for granting immunity to professional bodies, and they did so only as recently as 25th January. We shall give that case the careful attention that it deserves, but I am not able now to announce even preliminary conclusions. If we are convinced by the case— we shall of course take into account what has been said in the Committee today—we shall come forward with our own amendments. If not, I am sure that Members of the Committee will have other opportunities to pursue the matter. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment and if necessary come back at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Benson: I do not want to divide the Committee at this time, particularly as we all want to
1066
go to dinner. I should have preferred a slightly warmer assurance from the Minister as this subject has been under consideration for a long time. I should have expected by this time that the minds of the Minister and his colleagues would be moving in the direction whereby they could give us firm assurances that the appropriate relief would be available. Having regard to the guarded nature of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Delegation of functions of Secretary of State]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.218:
Page 49, line 30, after ("qualification") insert (", or withdrawing such approval,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.219:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Meaning of "associate".
.—(I) In this Part "associate", in relation to a person, shall be construed as follows.
(2) In relation to an individual "associate" means—

(a) that individual's spouse or minor child or step-child,

(b) any body corporate of which that individual is a director, and

(c) any employee or partner of that individual.

(3) In relation to a body corporate "associate" means—

(a) any body corporate of which that body is a director.

(b) any body corporate in the same group as that body, and

(c) any employee or partner of that body or of any body corporate in the same group.

(4) In relation to Scottish firm, or a partnership constituted under the law of any other country or territory in which a partnership is a legal person. "associate" means—

(a) any body corporate of which the firm is a director,

(b) any employee of or partner in the firm, and

(c) any person who is an associate of a partner in the firm.

(5) In relation to a partnership constituted under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or the law of any other country or territory in which a partnership is not a legal person, "associate" means any person who is an associate of any of the partners.").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 220 and 221. These amendments improve and extend the definition of associate in the Bill so as to catch a slightly wider group of people. The most significant place in which the word is used is in Clause 24, where the Secretary of State has power to make regulations specifying connections between a company auditor and any associate of his which make the auditor ineligible for appointment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 50. leave out lines 35 to 40.
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 51, line 14, column 2, leave out ("48") and insert ("(Meaning of "associate")").
The noble Lord said: 1 have spoken to this amendment. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 222 to 227:
Page 51, line 16, column 1, leave out ("statutory") and insert ("company").
Page 51, line 17, column 1, leave out ("statutory") and insert ('"company").
Page 51, line 33, column 2, leave out ("27(5)") and insert ("29(4)").
Page 51, line 34, column 2, leave out ("8") and insert ("9").
Page 51, line 37, column 2, leave out ("29(4)") and insert ("27(5)").
Page 51, line 38, column 2, leave out ("9") and insert ("8").
The noble Lord said: These amendments merely correct errors in the index of defined expressions. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have now reached the agreed stage on the Bill and therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988
7.49 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper) rose to move. That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th July 1988 be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1987–88].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, 1 beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House if at the same time I speak to the other Motion standing in my name.
The House will recall that last July Parliament debated and approved the majority of the United Kingdom regulations on environmental assessments for development projects which put into effect what we had agreed to do as European Community
1068
members and which implement the Directive on Environmental Assessments. The regulations before your Lordships today fill in the gaps and represent the final tidying up stage. The regulations are in two parts: the first set relates to my department, the Department of Energy, and the second to the Department of Transport.
As regards my department, the regulations apply to nuclear and other power stations, overhead electric lines and oil and gas pipe-lines, where the Secretary of State for Energy is the authorising Minister under the electricity and pipe-lines Acts. This is the distinction between these and the previous regulations, which are under the Town and Country Planning Act.
The transport regulations fill a minor loophole where harbour works developments are carried out to certain existing harbours. New harbours and some existing harbours are already covered by the regulations debated last summer.
Your Lordships may wish to know the implications on the energy regulations that arise from the electricity privatisation Bill which is currently being considered in another place. The position is that the new regulations reflect the electricity industry as it is today. They refer therefore to existing electricity Acts, which subject to the parliamentary process, will be repealed by the Electricity Bill. I anticipate in consequence that it will be appropriate to make technical changes to these regulations after the passage of the privatisation Bill in order to reflect the consent procedures for power stations and overhead lines that are provided for in Clauses 33 and 34 of that Bill.
Though I realise that your Lordships will be familiar with the form of these regulations from the previous discussion, there are three main features of these energy regulations to which I shall refer. First, they set out those categories of projects for which an environmental statement is mandatory—this includes all major power stations—and those categories where an environmental statement may be required if the Secretary of State so determines. Secondly, the regulations describe in the schedule those features of the application which the applicant must include in his environmental statement. Thirdly, they set out the way in which the applicant must make the statement available to the public.
Both sets of regulations under consideration today are therefore the final part of the implementation of the European Community directive that I know has been welcomed in principle by the House in the light of the importance that we all attach to the environmental consequences of large developments. It is on this basis that I commend these regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th July 1988 be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1987–88]. —(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to deal with both regulations at the same time and I am pleased that we are doing so. 1 welcome any steps to consider the environmental impact of

1069
development projects. In these cases, as the noble Baroness has said, we are dealing with electricity and harbour works. I also give a general welcome to the comprehensive information required of the environmental effects of electricity projects that are set out in the schedule of that regulation.
As the noble Baroness has explained, both regulations arise from EC directives. In my view there appear to be certain differences. It may be that I have not properly read the regulations and not properly understood the memoranda attached to each of them. If I may paraphrase the situation as regards harbour works, Regulation 3 applies only to works not subject to planning control. Regulation 4(5) states that the appropriate Minister decides finally whether the proposed works do not fall within the EC directive.
If within the terms of the directive an environmental assessment is required, under Regulation 5 the appropriate Minister will take steps to secure the necessary information and the developer has to give appropriate publicity under Regulation 6. Under Regulation 7 the Minister may direct that the information be supplied to bodies that the Minister may specify as having environmental responsibilities. He may decide as he thinks fit whether an inquiry should be held. So far I have no objection to the points as regards the harbour regulations.
But there appear to be some differences concerning the electricity projects. Under Regulation 3 the Secretary of State shall not give consent unless he shall first have taken environmental assessment into consideration. The noble Baroness made it quite clear that this refers to major projects only. In paragraph (2) of that regulation, an environmental statement shall be required only when the Secretary of State determines in his opinion that there would be significant effects on the environment. Then presumably Regulation 5 comes into effect. But the Secretary of State will have already made an important decision, deciding in his own opinion that there would be significant effects on the environment.
In Regulation 4 a person who has the intention to seek approval of proposed developments may make a written request as to whether the Secretary of State would wish to take an environmental statement into account. Though paragraph (4) makes a statement, it is only when the Secretary of State considers that he has sufficient information that he shall consult the local planning authority. Yet as far as I can understand the regulations and the accompanying memorandum, the Secretary of State may have already made his decision under Regulations 3(2) and 4(1). With whom will the Secretary of State consult before deciding that he has sufficient information on the environmental assessment?
Regulation 6 outlines the publicity that must be given when the application is accompanied by a statement. But is there to be opportunity for representations to be made by bodies or persons who may consider that they have a concern? It may be that I have misinterpreted certain aspects of the regulations but these differences will be rather important. I look forward to hearing what the noble
1070
Baroness has to say in reply to the various points that I have raised.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that we had discussed this matter in July. Though she was not here at the time, she has no doubt read the report of the proceedings on that occasion. She will know that, together with my noble friend Lord McIntosh, I was very upset at the way in which the Government have been handling parts of the implementation of this particular directive. My concerns have not decreased since that day despite a helpful letter that was received the day after the debate from the noble Earl. Lord Caithness. He was obviously very upset himself that there had been such a noisy scene in the Chamber on that date in July when we found the replies of the Government so very unsatisfactory.
I begin by saying that I still remain suspicious and I will return to wider suspicion in a moment. I wish to take up one problem as regards these two orders right away. There is an inconsistency between what is in the regulation concerning harbours and what is said about harbours in the wider regulations under town and country planning. The noble Baroness mentioned that there are two halves to this matter—one that falls under the town and country planning rules and one that does not. We are dealing with the one that does not, and there has to be this special regulation.
Under the town and country planning law the threshold is clearly mentioned; namely, that we are dealing here with harbours that can take ships of 1,350 tonnes. That is very clearly mentioned in the body of the regulation. What is so puzzling is that the threshold has now disappeared from the second regulation. I wish to know why it has been left out. It is leaving out an important point that is in the directive from Brussels. Annex 1 of the directive, which is the obligatory and mandatory part of it, says that "there shall be". There is no question about it. The annex states that there shall be an environment impact assessment when a harbour is capable of taking ships of 1,350 tonnes or more. Why has that not been stated quite clearly in this regulation before us this evening when it is stated in the regulations as regards the town and country planning system concerning harbours?
This may be part of the problem that is worrying my noble friend on the Front Bench. He said that a good deal now seems to be devolved to the Minister. However, the Minister cannot make a decision on this one. Where a harbour is capable of taking ships of that size it must be, under the directive, subject to an environmental impact assessment.
I have no complaint about the rest of the regulation. It follows carefully and properly the lines of all the others in the way that the system is to work. I have no complaint about the other one which deals with power stations. I note in passing that the threshold is carefully stated. It is taken straight from the directive and put in the regulation. It applies, and must apply, to power stations with an output of more than 300 megawatts. It is curious that the threshold is left out of the regulation on harbours.

1071
The noble Baroness made a puzzling and worrying point. She said that the regulations wipe up everything, that they clear up the backlog, that we are now at the end of the road and that with the two proposed regulations the directive will be put fully into force. They do not do that at all. That is the most worrying statement she made this evening. I do not want to stray too far from the regulations, but the Government have sidestepped and evaded the agricultural land points in the directive. I shall give an example. The regulations about the drainage of land cover land whether or not it is to be grant-aided. I concede that point which we raised during the July debate. However, they apply only to the drainage of land carried out by statutory authorities. The regulations will not cover drainage of land, which can have a large impact on areas of wild land, carried out by private owners and not by statutory authorities. The Government are evading that part of the directive.
The only way in which the directive will apply to afforestation is when the Government, through the Forestry Commission, make a grant for initial afforestation. The Government's excuse is that there will not be much afforestation without government grant so they do not need to worry about it. However, that is not so. A good deal of afforestation may be carried out by private owners without government grants. There is nothing in the regulations to carry out that part of the directive.
I am not alone in my concern. The Nature Conservancy Council has protested vigorously about the way in which the forestry part of the directive is being carried out. It calls it a minimum measure. I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 10th August 1988:
"The Nature Conservancy Council said yesterday that it had not succeeded in persuading the Government to require environmental assessments for forestry projects on all areas of semi-natural vegetation—meaning on all moorland and blanket bog. It maintains that conifer forestry has caused drastic changes to the ecology of the wilder moorland and peatland areas of Britain, and. where planted inappropriately, acidifies rivers and watercourses".
The article goes on to mention the kinds of areas which concern the Nature Conservancy Council. It refers to the flow country, the Western Isles, particularly Islay, the Borders, Kintyre, Galloway, and around the Cambrian and Breadalbane environmentally sensitive areas. There is nothing in the regulations to deal with private afforestation unless it attracts government grants through the Forestry Commission. A good deal of afforestation may take place over the years—I am sure we shall not return to this issue for some years—without government grants.
My other point on agriculture relates to changes in land use. When working in the Commission in Brussels 1 was surprised that the Government swallowed the parts of the directive dealing with changes in land use. I now discover why they swallowed them. They had no real intention of carrying them out. They say that they do not need to have controls and environmental impact assessments over changes in agricultural land use simply because, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said in his letter to my noble friend Lord McIntosh and to me, they are not likely to occur in this country. We are told that
1072
most of our holdings are pretty settled in size and that with overproduction of foodstuffs today if there are changes they are likely to be in favour of increasing rather than reducing the wildlife areas of our agricultural land.
However, the position can change very rapidly. It could be the other way round in a few years' time. In addition, it does not take care of marginal cases where concern arises. Land may well be reclaimed from wildlife and from conservation use to be put into agricultural production. It cannot be assumed that no such environmentally important land will be reclaimed and put to intensive or more intensive production. It is not good enough to evade the intention and the letter of the directive by having in those three areas—drainage, afforestation and changes in land use—an excuse that does not really hold water, linking the matter only to things which are done by statutory authorities or attract government grants.
I cannot make much more of this point this evening because to do so would be wholly out of order. However, I feel bound to protest strongly because the noble Baroness said that this is the end of the road and that there will be no more regulations to carry out the directive. Some of us will have to carry on protesting. I hope that in the end the matter can be settled. The Council for the Protection of Rural England is now waiting for a decision to see whether it can challenge under European law some of the missing parts of the implementation. Unless we do something about these areas in which we have not carried out the directive, either there will be fights in the European Court or the Commission will be bound to intervene and point out to the British Government that they are not carrying out the directive as finally agreed by the Council of Ministers.
I am not wholly unhappy with the two regulations but I was extremely unhappy to hear the noble Baroness say that this is the last we shall hear of the subject and that from now on she will be calling the matter closed as regards implementation of the directive.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Northfield, for their comments, and, if I may put it this strongly, for their welcome on the whole for the regulations. I shall endeavour to respond to the questions that were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, questioned the area of consultation with local authorities. I can reassure him that the Secretary of State will have the views of the local planning authorities under the administrative procedures which are provided for and shown in form B. These apply to all applications under the electricity Acts. So far as concerns representations, major electricity projects are required to be advertised. The Electricity (Publication of Applications) Regulations 1957 are the relevant regulations and they set out the manner in which representations may be made to the Secretary of State.
As regards the concerns expressed about the harbour regulations, perhaps I should reiterate that the regulations which are before the House are

1073
supplementary regulations and Regulation 3 limits the scope to harbour works below the low water mark which are not subject to planning control and which have not been specifically authorised by legislation.
Perhaps I may say here that major port developments almost always turn out to need legislation. The Community directive excludes from its scope projects which are specifically authorised by national legislation. The harbour works draft regulations contained in 3(c) therefore exclude works under local Acts. I understand that at present about 15 Bills are before Parliament seeking powers for harbour authorities. Moreover, these may or may not be environmentally significant projects. But, in that case, it is for Parliament, and in particular the Select Committee which examines each Bill, to decide whether to call for an environmental assessment.
In the cases with which these regulations are concerned, the appropriate department will ask developers for more information where necessary and from that the department will decide and inform him whether the project needs environmental assessment and consent. From there on, as with other procedures under the directive which involve advertisement and the possibility of a public inquiry and consent with or without conditions, such applications will follow in the same form.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, expressed particular concern about harbour works and about the application of these regulations. I should point out to him that Annex 1 to the directive applies to new harbours only and that these regulations which are before us now are concerned essentially with modifications of harbours which are listed in Annex II to the directive.
I must say that I am sorry to have missed the previous discussion which took place last July when many points were raised on all the regulations which were then going through the House. I understand that in total they came to something like 18 separate sets of regulations. However, I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that he was somewhat reassured by the information which he subsequently received.
In regard to his comments on agricultural land requirements, I must say that those are outside the scope of the regulations which are before the House tonight. Nevertheless, I shall draw his comments to the attention of my relevant right honourable and honourable friends who are concerned with the matter. But I wish to emphasise that drafts or copies of all the regulations, both those which were agreed last July and the present draft regulations, have been submitted to the European Commission in Brussels. Further, so far as I am aware we have not had any objections at all as regards the manner of our implementation of this important directive.
1074
I should add that in relation to our implementation of the directive overall we are actually well ahead in the field. I believe that only France and the Netherlands have passed the necessary legislation completely ahead of us. Our provisions will enable us to carry out the principle and the spirit of the directive most adequately.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether she would be good enough to write to me further on the point about the 1,350 tonnes. I should have thought that if the effect of the works under these regulations made the harbour capable of taking 1,350 tonnes it would then be within the spirit of Annex 1 of the directive and therefore have a compulsory assessment. In that case, would it not be better to have some threshold, as there is in nearly all the other parts of these regulations? As I said, the thresholds which are in the directive have been reproduced in the regulations. However, if I may say so, I am still puzzled—despite the noble Baroness's attempt to explain this—as to why there is no threshold in this one and why it is left to so much ministerial discretion. If the noble Baroness will write to me on that point I shall be most grateful.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall be delighted to look again at what the noble Lord said. If there is any way in which I can attempt to reassure him further, I shall certainly do so. In the meantime, I commend both sets of regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (No. 2) Regulations 1988
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December 1988 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December 1988 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hooper.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport Bill
Returned from the Commons with amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
  SALMONELLA
  SALMONELLA
  PRISONERS' LETTERS
  PRISONERS' LETTERS
  FIREARMS PROHIBITION: ENTRY INTO FORCE
  FIREARMS PROHIBITION: ENTRY INTO FORCE
  CIVIL DEFENCE REGULATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION
  CIVIL DEFENCE REGULATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION
  CERVICAL SMEAR TESTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  CERVICAL SMEAR TESTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  BREAST CANCER SCREENING IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  BREAST CANCER SCREENING IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  A.l NORMAN CROSS IMPROVEMENT SCHEME
  A.l NORMAN CROSS IMPROVEMENT SCHEME