Sitting of 5 July 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WESLEYAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Economy
    Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I met the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 30 June.
    Mr. Robertson: Next time the Secretary of State meets the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, he will find him, like so many other people in Scotland, deeply concerned at the paralysis that has hit the Scottish Development Agency due to the cash crisis that it faces. Is he aware that many projects in my constituency and in many others are being hit by the funding crisis? Will he ensure that the agency immediately receives the funds it requires to retain its credibility among the Scottish people and to create the jobs that Scotland so deeply needs?
    Mr. Rifkind: When I met the general secretary of the STUC a few days ago, he did not raise that subject, but emphasised that he thought that the Government's proposals for merging the SDA with the Training Agency were a splendid idea, and that he and his colleagues looked forward to welcoming those proposals in the coming weeks and months. The SDA receives healthy funding, provided by the Government, and as a consequence is involved in a number of major projects around Scotland.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the TUC should be happy about jobs in Scotland? Will he confirm that Scotland's unemployment rate is lower than that of most of our European partners, including France, Belgium, Holland, Spain and Italy?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, that is correct. Although unemployment in Scotland is still far higher than any of us would wish to see, it has fallen by more than 100,000 in the past two years. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is lower than
    290
    the level to be found in at least five other countries in the European Community—France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Ireland.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister will have seen the reports showing that £400,000 of the £3·7 million of public money that was put into the Wang project in Stirling is to be repaid. It that true? Will he also comment on the stories that Intel, a Californian company, may be interested in the plant? Does he believe that there is a realistic prospect of finding a buyer to take over the plant as a going concern? Does he accept that there must have been something very wrong with his Department's monitoring system when Wang so signally failed to meet its targets at Stirling and he was left with only one week's notice of the decision to decamp?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the final point, Wang received financial assistance from the Government under the same criteria as that provided by former Labour Governments. It was precisely because of the difficulties that that created in the past that the Government changed the criteria in 1984. As regards the hon. Gentleman's other points, Wang has indicated that some repayment to the Government might be appropriate. I share the hon. Gentleman's deep interest in finding an alternative user for the site, but I earnestly suggest that at this stage speculation about who that potential user might be is not in the interests of Stirling or of investment in the area.

    Standard Grade Development Programme
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the funding of the Government's standard grade development programme, particularly in relation to technological studies, computing studies and office information studies.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): To date, more than £37 million has been spent or provided for specifically for standard grade. This includes more than £9 million within local authorities' capital allocations for the purchase of scientific and technological equipment.
    Mr. Dunnachie: It is obvious that the Minister has not met senior education officials in Strathclyde, who have expressed to me their grave concern about the severe underfunding of these important subjects in education and have asked me to ask the Minister to think again and to put money into these subjects so as to allow the young people of Scotland to be trained so as to enable them to compete in the new industries that are supposed to be coming to Scotland. Those education officials tell me that if they do not get the money they will view the future of those subjects with grave concern.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the education authorities are making their representations through the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Education Department has received no representations of the kind that he has described. The education authorities have had substantial provision. If the Educational Institute of Scotland is worried about standard grade, it should address its criticisms in the first instance to the education authorities, to which adequate provision has been made.
    I should say in defence of the Educational Institute of Scotland that its executive took a different position from

    291
    that of its conference and opposed any boycott of standard grade. It is unfortunate that the annual general meeting took such a view, and I hope that the teachers who have implemented standard grade so successfully will continue to make a contribution.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that there is an important role in all this for the Scottish Council for Educational Technology? Will he therefore ensure that it is properly resourced, including proper funding for the Scottish central film library and the Scottish film archives, which have made a major contribution to technology in our time?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been sensitive to the needs of the Scottish film industry. I recall the hon. Gentleman telling me privately how pleased he was at the Government's announcement following our review. I am sorry that he is not prepared to say publicly in the House what he was prepared to say privately—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never at any time—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Clarke: When a Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This all takes time out of other hon. Members' questions.
    Mr. Clarke: The Minister has clearly misunderstood the meetings which took place about the Scottish Film Council and has confused it with the Scottish central film library. I believe that that was a genuine misunderstanding and that he should withdraw what he said.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of single parents in Scotland are gaining from the introduction of the community charge.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is estimated that some 80 per cent. of single parents are better off under the community charge than they would be under the domestic rating system.
    Mr. Harris: I welcome that answer, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that an even higher percentage—85 per cent.—of pensioners stand to benefit from the introduction of the community charge? Do not those two sets of figures amount to further evidence of the inherent fairness of the community charge compared with the present rating system?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is undoubtedly true. It is also particularly welcome because single pensioners and single parents can be found among those with the lowest incomes in our society. The fact that they overwhelmingly benefit as a result of the change in the system of local taxation is, as my hon. Friend says, another vindication of that change.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister have a care about his use of words? The question was about gaining. How can he suggest that single parents or anyone on a low income will gain from the imposition of the poll tax? Will he also consider the huge cost of the tax to Scotland? It costs £30 million to £40 million more than the rates. What a burden that is, and what an intrusion it is on people's civil liberties.
    Mr. Rifkind: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman with his oft-proclaimed interest in the well-being of the poorer sections of our community would be the first, if he wished to be seen as an objective commentator on these matters, to welcome the fact that 85 per cent. of single pensioners and 80 per cent. of single parents pay less now than they would be paying if domestic rates were still in force.
    Mr. Douglas: They are not gaining.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may not like the facts, but he will have to live with them.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that single parents in Dundee are not getting the full benefit and advantage of the community charge because since 1983 Dundee district council has paid the salary of Mr. Jim White, a full-time official of NALGO, who brought about the strike and has caused terrible inconvenience to single parent? Is that not a further example of why the community charge is far higher than it should be, and a factor which may be prevalent throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: Undoubtedly, factors of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers have led to the consequences that he has described. I should have thought that anyone interested in the well-being of the community would wish to discourage any action by local authority officials or others which would have that effect. The vast majority of local authority officials are carrying out their responsibilities diligently and with due consideration for the important matters to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Maxton: Is not the only reason why single parents are marginally better off this year than they were last year the iniquitous 20 per cent. minimum payment that the Government imposed on those who are hardest up in our society? If the Secretary of State is so keen on statistics, why does he not tell us the percentage of people earning more than £25,000 per year who are considerably better off as a result of the poll tax?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for rebuking the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and confirming that single parents and single pensioners are better off. That is the most eloquent denunciation yet of the nonsense that we have heard from some Opposition M embers.

    Rural Housing
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss the development of a rural housing strategy.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The development of Scottish Homes' rural strategy was one of the issues discussed formally when I met Sir James Mellon, chairman of Scottish Homes, on 23 June.
    Mr. Wallace: When the Under-Secretary of State spoke in the Scottish Grand Committee last week about homelessness, one remedy that he did not describe was building more houses. Given that homelessness is as much a rural as an urban problem, and that the amount

    293
    allocated by Scottish Homes to housing associations in the north of Scotland will scarcely allow for any new projects to be brought on stream in the next year, what steps do the Government intend to take to give more support to housing associations so that they can fulfil the important task of building and providing housing?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have good news for the hon. Member. Orkney housing association has been allocated £850,000 this year—the largest allocation since its formation. Moreover, programme expenditure for the north region is no less than £44 million for 1988–89. I fully expect the rural strategy now being worked out by Scottish Homes to be in place by May next year. That strategy will point the way to more houses being built in areas where they are most needed. We expect that in Scotland as a whole between 3,000 and 4,000 houses will be completed this year.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in terms of rural and urban housing, the Loreburn housing association has carried out exceptionally good work in Dumfries and Galloway? Will he do everything possible to approve its exciting new scheme at Nithsdale mills, even it if means the demolition of a Victorian mill?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that the performance of Loreburn housing association has been extremely impressive. Its application to pull down the building to which my hon. Friend refers is currently with Dumfries and Galloway regional council, which is the planning authority. The application will be considered this month. If it is approved, the decision will be notified to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State as the building is listed, but the matter will be processed as quickly as possible thereafter.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are on poll tax registers; and how many of them have not so far paid at least the first instalment.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is estimated that almost 99 per cent. of the adult population have been registered. It will be some while yet before reliable information on payment levels becomes available from local authorities. The current indications are that local authorities are satisfied with the progress so far made in collecting community charges.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State seriously telling us that the staff of 10,000 at the Scottish office are insufficient to make a dozen telephone calls to the regional and islands councils to obtain the figures needed for a full and accurate reply to a parliamentary question? Or is there, perhaps, a political reason for his refusal to reveal the whole truth about the number of non-payers? Does he admit that if it became public knowledge that several hundred thousand people in Scotland were refusing to pay the poll tax, more and more people would join the non-payment campaign, which is the only realistic way to defeat the poll tax and stop it being foisted on the people of Scotland by a discredited Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: If there is a political reason, I must say that it is a very odd one. I understand that Strathclyde regional councillors have yet to be informed by their own
    294
    officials of the level of collection in the region. The hon. Gentleman never likes to admit that he is pursuing a lost cause. His views on this have been repudiated by his own party—and, indeed, by the general public, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and a large number of other Scottish organisations—but he can continue to whistle in the dark.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is it not disgraceful that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) should support a campaign which argues that people should not pay their lawful dues to society when the legislation has been passed by a democratically elected House of Commons? What do Labour Members think would happen if Conservatives took the same attitude when a Labour Government were in power? Is it not also outrageous that well-heeled Opposition Members should refuse to pay their dues to the community whose services they receive?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is not unusual for either the hard Left of the Labour party or the SNP to give itself the right to decide which laws it should observe and which it should not.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Secretary of State not disturbed by the increasing use of pinding and warrant sales as a method of collecting poll tax?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is very much up to local authorities to decide which procedure they should apply. As the House well knows, major reforms have been made to the warrant sales system, leading to the removal of all the features of that system that were causing concern to both sides of the House. Those who are owed the community charge and have not received it are clearly entitled to use such methods as they think appropriate under the law.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received expressing support for his review of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Most submissions on the White Paper "Working for Patients" have shown strong support for certain proposals and have questioned others.
    Mr. Ross: That reply beggars belief. The Minister must concede that there is hardly anyone on whom he can call for support. According to a recent Gallup poll, not even the Conservative party supports what he is doing to the National Health Service. Is it not about time that he withdrew this nonsensical review—at least in respect of Scotland—and got down to serious discussions with people in the Health Service about trying to create a better service rather than trying to fragment it?
    Mr. Forsyth: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. Even the British Medical Association supports our proposals for a medical audit, money following patients and resource management. As for the public and those who depend on the Health Service as a whole, there is widespread support for our measures to reduce waiting lists, to ensure that people are given appointments on which they can rely and that they see a consultant, to make it easier for patients to change doctors and to extend patient choice.

    295
    The opinion poll to which the hon. Gentleman referred represents a public view on the White Paper as presented by the BMA and the Government's opponents, which is a long way from any proposals that we have presented. If the hon. Gentleman has studied the poll and our proposals, he will know that the Government have no intention of privatising the National Health Service.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister acknowledge that there has been massive and united opposition to his proposals from general practitioners in my constituency, who are against the proposal to create a poorer and less effective National Health Service? When will he start to acknowledge that there is massive public disapproval of his plans, as well as professional disapproval? This is a democracy. When will the Minister stop dictating to the people and start to understand what they are saying and do something about it?
    Mr. Forsyth: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with some of the GPs in Angus district. One GP who has come forward as a volunteer to run a pilot scheme —[Interruption.] Opposition Members should not mock. The BMA itself suggested that pilot schemes would be a good idea. That GP, who came into my office to volunteer as a result of representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), practises in Angus. He believes that his proposals will result in better services for the patients on his list, and we shall see if we are able to take them forward.
    Mr. Frank Field: As health expenditure per person in Scotland is 25 per cent. higher than in England, can the Minister assure the House that, on average, Scottish citizens are 25 per cent. healthier than English citizens? If not, should he not spend his time making sure that his Department devises indices to answer that question rather than ramming through National Health Service reforms, since neither the Government nor anyone else can say whether they will improve or reduce health standards in Scotland, England or Wales?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to point out that health expenditure is 25 per cent. higher in Scotland than it is in England. He is also right to point out that health in Scotland is no better as a result. He should address his remarks to his own party, which seems to believe that the problems of the Health Service are entirely—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is a member of a party which is arguing that the only problems with the Health Service are due to inadequate resources. Yet he has pointed out that although Scotland has been provided with substantial additional resources, health in Scotland is not proportionately better. It is for those reasons that we put forward our White Paper proposals. I welcome the hon. Gentleman as an ally in what we are trying to do in the National Health Service.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Rifkind: I met the agency board, including the chief executive, on 22 May and discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.
    Mr. McKelvey: Notwithstanding the reply that the Secretary of State gave to question No. I and also to this question, did he have any discussions with the chief executive about the shortfall of funds? Is he aware that in my constituency of Kilmarnock, small Scottish business men with good businesses and good workers are losing out on projects that could have received a grant because spending is ahead of schedule, either as a result of sheer efficiency on our part or because the weather in Scotland is mild at the moment and building work is further ahead than usual? If the Secretary of State could give more money to the Scottish Development Agency now so that those projects could be kept within the plan, he would dispel the fears of those small business men who are losing out and also defeat the wisecrackers who are going about the streets of Kilmarnock suggesting that he has backed the Wang horse.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman's comments. Any suggestion that the SDA is underfunded does not match the facts when one considers what has happened. Total provision for the agency in 1989–90 is £160 million, compared with £147 million last year. The fact that support is being sought for even more projects suggests that economic activity in Scotland is healthy. I have no doubt that the SDA, which has £160 million available to it this year, will be able to respond positively to a very large proportion of company requests which justify support.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, compared with the view of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey), we in the north-east of Scotland appreciate the work of the Scottish Development Agency and the funding and support that it provides both for major projects, such as Aberdeen Beyond 2000, and for rural projects, such as those to be found in Braemar in my constituency? May I have his assurance that the SDA, contrary to the way in which it acted in the past, will continue to take an interest in activities in areas outside the central belt of Scotland, such as the north-east?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have emphasised to the Scottish Development Agency that its remit is for the whole of Scotland and that the north-east in particular is entitled to its fair share of any resources that are available. Some of the criticism that one used to hear a few years ago about the concentration of SDA activity in one particular part of Scotland is now heard much less often. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is able to confirm that the SDA is supporting projects in his area.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: When the Secretary of State next meets the Scottish Development Agency, will he consider asking it to look into the structure of community businesses, which are developing well in Scotland but which need to be given a new legal status if they are to expand further? Will he also consider whether the SDA might have a role in providing venture capital for new businesses as there is still a gap in the market for venture capital, particularly for those who have ideas and energy but no collateral?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall be happy to ensure that his ideas are discussed with the SDA, to find out whether there is a gap in its ability to meet that requirement and perhaps it will comment on the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take time today to congratulate the director of the national galleries on resuming and restoring the galleries for such a small sum? Will he remind the House—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am no great expert on Scottish matters, but is this a matter for the SDA?
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the Government have provided the funds to enable the work to be done through the SDA because of our economic policies. We have had a decade of regeneration in the arts in Scotland unrivalled by any previous Government.
    Mr. Rifkind: I can certainly confirm to my hon. and learned Friend that the restoration and improvements to the national galleries have rightly received wide applause throughout Scotland. It was a remarkable achievement, whether or not the SDA was involved.
    Dr. Godman: During his meeting with the chief executive of the SDA, did the Secretary of State establish the reasons for the decision to include three public houses and a betting shop within the boundaries of the Inverclyde enterprise zone? Is it not the case that the two local authorities will lose more than a bob or two over the next 10 years because of that gaff? Given the Secretary of State's ever-ready desire to berate Labour local authorities for their poor financial management, will he now give an assurance that the two councils concerned will not lose any money because of that gaff?
    Mr. Rifkind: First, I understand that those particular sites were regarded as potential sites that could be used to attract new investment to Inverclyde. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that local authorities will lose out, because their revenue support grant takes into account their expected revenue. If that revenue goes down, there will be an enhancement of revenue support grant. Thirdly, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in expressing delight at the decision of Crusader to move 300 jobs from Reigate in Surrey to Inverclyde because of the Government's decision to create an enterprise zone there.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of unemployed in Scotland (a) in June 1983 and (b) at the present time.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Seasonally-adjusted unemployment in Scotland in June 1983 was 300,100, and the figure for May 1989 is 239,800. Unemployment in Scotland has now fallen for 25 months in succession, the longest and largest sustained fall on record.
    Mr. Favell: Is it not clear that jobs are now returning to Scotland because the Government have failed to encourage the "the world owes us a free lunch" mentality encouraged by the Opposition, and have encouraged the
    298
    traditional Scottish virtues of hard work, industrial and commercial innovation and enterprise which have served Scotland, the United Kingdom, the British Commonwealth and the world during previous periods of prosperity? Is it not good to know that the ancient virtues are the best way to serve Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The civilian work force in Scotland grew by 66,000 last year. Although I am glad that unemployment is falling in the north of England, in the past year seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland fell faster than in the south-east of England.
    Mr. Watson: Notwithstanding the Minister's self-satisfied response, does he accept that youth unemployment in Scotland, and in the city of Glasgow in particular, is at a record level? Five of the six wards which I represent in Glasgow, Central have youth unemployment in excess of 28 per cent. One has a horrendous youth unemployment figure of 45 per cent. Will the Minister say what hope he can hold out to school leavers in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening contribution to the proceedings of the House. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing many more contributions from him. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the youth training scheme operates extremely effectively in Glasgow. Last year, 82 per cent. of those who completed a YTS course in Glasgow obtained some form of employment over the following three months. Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by 2,140 since January 1987.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my hon. Friend taken the trouble to make clear to people in Scotland the extent to which grants from the United Kingdom Treasury are made available, for instance in the development of tourism in Scotland, where, with a similar rate of unemployment —[Interruption.] May I wait until the interruptions have finished, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: That may be a long time.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this may not be welcome to the Labour party, but I will repeat the question as it was interrupted.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to put his question.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my hon. Friend made sure that people in Scotland realise the extent to which grants are available, for instance under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, in conditions of unemployment in Scotland, where they would not be available in the rest of the United Kingdom, including the south-west?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Regional assistance is applied evenhandedly across the United Kingdom. However, as a result of need in Scotland, 65 per cent. of our working population work in assisted areas, compared with 35 per cent. for the rest of the United Kingdom. Regional assistance has helped to regenerate the Scottish economy and create the new jobs to which I referred.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the impact of the standard community charge in self-catering tourist flats.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of such representations.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that the border areas tourist authority which conducted a survey of 500 properties in the retail self-catering sector of tourism in the area, found that the owners of such properties are paying an additional £200 a year as a direct result of the standard community charge? Is it not slightly ludicrous that a unit containing 10 self-catering flats on one site is subject to the commercial rating system, whereas 10 separate units in different locations must pay 10 individual standard community charges? Will he consider changing the regulations so that all units are subject to commercial rates?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should refer the increased costs faced by such organisations to regional and district councils in his area, because they have deliberately chosen to impose a standard charge as high as twice as much as is open to them. Had they imposed a multiplier of one instead of two, many of the problems faced by self-catering establishments would not have arisen.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister aware that not only is the tourist industry being seriously affected by this aspect of the legislation but that it is also causing serious financial hardship to organisations that work for the disabled? Is he aware that the Association of Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, which was bequested two small properties, is paying standard community charge on them, thereby making it increasingly difficult for it to offer respite to the carers of disabled people?
    Mr. Lang: Such a development would, indeed, be extremely regrettable. The standard community charge accounts for about 0·3 per cent. of total local authority revenue. The choice is open to them of imposing a multiplier of one instead of two, which would halve the burden faced by such organisations.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is a problem? The impact of the standard community charge on the provision of self-catering and other tourist accommodation cuts right across other Government schemes, such as farm diversification. Will he acknowledge that this problem requires a review, and will he undertake to instigate such a review?
    Mr. Lang: As I have made clear on a number of occasions, we are constantly considering all aspects of the community charge legislation. Nevertheless, I urge my right hon. Friend to bring to the attention of his district and regional councils the fact that the solution lies largely in their own hands.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister consider the possibility that his bland refusal to offer any movement on a non-ideological point of common sense relating to the standard community charge accounts for the standing of his party in Scotland? Nobody believes the Minister when he says that the standard community charge is the
    300
    responsibility of local authorities. Everyone knows that the Scottish Office calculations for the poll tax were based on the assumption that a multiplier of two would be used. Will the Minister accept the commonsense solution and allow local authorities to vary the standard community charge according to the type of properties and the level of use?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would take us back close to a property tax. The assumption made in the distribution of revenue support grant was in line with normal practice and carried no implications for, or recommendation on, the decisions by local authorities. Indeed, had the multiplier assumption been one instead of two, six of the nine regional authorities in Scotland would have had less revenue support grant, rather than more.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of unemployment in Scotland in (a) January 1987 and (b) May 1989.
    Mr. Lang: Seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland in January 1987 was 340,600; and the corresponding figure for May 1989 was over 100,000 lower at 239,800. Unemployment in Scotland now stands at its lowest level for eight years.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent and encouraging reply. Does he agree that the Government's economic policies have helped to achieve that result? No doubt, that will cause distress to the Oppositon. Will my hon. Friend confirm that inward investment has contributed to that excellent result and that such investment would be strongly questioned by overseas companies should the Labour party ever have the chance to govern this country again?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. We saw the Labour party's contribution to the inward investment effort when it helped drive Ford from Dundee.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that high unemployment, especially among our young people, forces many young people to go to the London area. Is he aware of the posters at King's Cross advertising vacancies for waitresses and hostesses in busy West End clubs and saying that payment will be made daily? Surely, as long as the Government fail to consider unemployment in Scotland, our young people will be in moral danger.
    Mr. Lang: It is certainly the case that different unemployment rates in different parts of the country attract people to move in different directions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that Crusader Insurance recently decided to relocate from the south-east to the Inverclyde enterprise zone. That shows that market forces are working effectively within an integrated United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that unemployment in his constituency has fallen since January 1987 by 2,470.
    Mr. Sillars: Will Scottish unemployment continue to go down over the next 12 months?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government never give forecasts, but, on the basis of what

    301
    has happened over the past 25 months, that is a reasonable expectation. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, unemployment has fallen by 1,685 over that period.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the attraction to Scotland of major inward investment projects, such as JVC, Digital, Compaq and Crusader Insurance. Is he aware that inward investment organisations in the north and south of England are complaining that everywhere they go in the world they are faced with Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Development Association—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is that?"]—sorry, the Scottish Development Agency? The success of the Scottish Office and the SDA has been widely commented on south of the border. Will my hon. Friend do us all a favour and not try quite so hard in the future?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the inward investment successes of the Government and our agencies. It is true that the electronics industry in Scotland is of great value to the Scottish economy. It accounted for our single biggest export category when, in 1987, 26 per cent. of our exports, valued at £1·5 billion, were in that category. The one thing that would jeopardise our inward investment efforts would be the uncertainty created by tax-raising devolution.

    Education
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he now has any proposals to extend section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: As I indicated in the House on 20 June, we shall look again at the case for action in the light of the outcome of the review of the operation of section 43 in England and Wales by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    Mr. Hogg: Does that not represent an astonishing about face, given the Minister's reply in the House on 7 June, when he said that there was no evidence in support of such a move? Does that mean that he does not know his own mind, or that he is coming under increasing pressure from Conservative Members, who owe no allegiance to Scottish higher education?
    Mr. Forsyth: On 7 June, I said that there had been little evidence of disruption of free speech in Scotland. I also said that we would be prepared to legislate if necessary. That remains the position.
    Mr. Dewar: I suppose that this is a hopeless request, but will the Minister now give a guarantee that he will stand firm against the rather brutal performance of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and some of his intellectual bovver boys behind him? Will he look at the evidence and advice of his own Department, and show some respect for Scottish universities by defying the Right-wing prejudices with which he is too often personally associated? Does he recall that when he was asked specifically by the right hon. Member for Chingford whether he was arguing that there was no problem in Scottish universities or whether he was saying that section 43 would, in any case, offer no safeguards, he replied that he was quite clear that he was saying both? Why is he now flirting with a review in this weasel way?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman regards the preservation of freedom of speech in our universities as a Right-wing prejudice. I appreciate that the Left in this country has been associated with the denial of freedom of speech, but this is the first time I have heard a Front-Bench spokesman suggest that concern about freedom of speech is a Right-wing prejudice. Unlike many of his hon. Friends the hon. Gentleman was actually present for that debate. He made his position clear and he will have seen that the House was well attended. Hon. Members made a number of interruptions in the debate and, as a Minister, it is my role to take account of the views of the House.

    School Leavers
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects school leavers in (a) Glasgow, Maryhill and (b) areas of similarly high unemployment to be able reasonably to anticipate finding a permanent, full-time job.
    Mr. Lang: With the considerable fall in unemployment over the past two years, the buoyancy of Scottish industry and the projected decline in the number of young people, the employment prospects for school leavers are better than they have been for some time.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that he will stand accused of amazing complacency by the people of Scotland when they consider his replies to questions on unemployment this afternoon? Has he noticed that of the 20 constituencies in Great Britain with the highest level of unemployment, no less than eight are in Glasgow? Will he tell us what the Government's present economic policies are doing for the people of Glasgow, including the school leavers who cannot get a job?
    Mr. Lang: Glasgow undoubtedly continues to have very considerable unemployment problems, to which the Government are addressing great attention. Nevertheless, since January 1987, unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by 21,500, or by about 30 per cent. I would feel more guilty of complacency if it were not for the fact that Glasgow and Strathclyde have rejected the technology academy offered to them, which would considerably have advanced the prospects of young people in the area.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If Scotland ever had the misfortune either to have an assembly or to be separated from the United Kingdom, does my hon. Friend take the view that we would have more employed and more inward investment, or less? Indeed, would we have more mistresses, or whatever was suggested earlier?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend makes a useful point. Over the past six years, the Scottish Development Agency has invested no less than £166 million in Glasgow and that is helping to generate new enterprise in the area.
    Mr. Worthington: Will the Minister comment on that successful Scottish firm, Hinari, which is based in Cumbernauld, which chose its name because it sounded Japanese? The founder has said:
    "Although our products are designed in Scotland most are made in the Far East, half coming from Japan. We wanted to let people know that our products are made in Japan".
    What comment is that on the economic miracle?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have to develop his points on another occasion. He has given us a tantalising glimpse of the point that he was trying to make. I am prepared to compliment Hinari, which is a good and effective company, as are many other companies in Scotland. The number of companies registered in Scotland has increased by over half in the 1980s. There has been an increase of 20,000 and an extra 66,000 people have entered self-employment in recent years. Those are signs of the growth of enterprise and of the spread of new companies in Scotland over that time.

    Unemployment
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed unemployment levels with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have frequent contacts with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland. Its most recent assessment, conveyed to me in a letter from the chairman of the Scottish Council, is of confidence in the continuing buoyancy of the Scottish economy.
    Sir Hector Monro: I warmly welcome the fall of 100,000 in the number of people unemployed in the past two years and the fall from 13·6 to 9·6 per cent. What discussions has my right hon. and learned Friend had about Enterprise Scotland and about how the CBI and himself consider that there may be a further fall in the numbers of people unemployed?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there is a great degree of interest in the proposal that was published in the Government's recent White Paper which proposed private sector-led local agencies. At the moment we are considering our response to the many constructive comments that have been made. I hope to report to the House in the near future because I have no doubt that the proposals will be relevant in dealing with the need to reduce unemployment further over the months and years to come.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Scottish Office has allowed the employment services division independently to launch a two-year pilot scheme called the "job interview guarantee scheme" in the Whitfield area of Dundee and in the Castlemilk area of Glasgow without consulting or even informing local Members of Parliament, local councils, local people and the local partnership groups which exist in those areas under the New Urban Life for Scotland policy? When will the Government stop doing things to the long-term unemployed and start doing things for and with the long-term unemployed?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might be under a misapprehension. This matter is under consideration, but no decision has been reached.
    Mr. Ingram: Given the importance of the new towns to the economic health of the Scottish economy, when the Secretary of State met the CBI, did he explain the reason for the inordinate and unacceptable delay in the publication of the White Paper on the future of the new towns?
    Mr. Rifkind: There is no delay in that matter. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the well-being of the new
    304
    towns, he must be of the view that we should bring our proposals forward only when we are in a position to do so. These are important matters. The winding up of the various new town corporations is a long-term reform of great significance to all those who live in the new towns. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wishes us to rush such matters before we have reached appropriate conclusions.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. and learned Friend and his Scottish Office colleagues have been rightly proud this afternoon when stating how much help they have managed to give to Scotland. In an earlier supplementary question, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that expenditure on health in Scotland was 25 per cent. more per head of population than it is in England. If that is so in relation to industry and employment also, would my right hon. and learned Friend be surprised if and many of my colleagues who represent English constituencies felt that we were being discriminated against?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that it is true in the spheres of industry and employment. However, it is certainly the case that throughout the United Kingdom the Government spend more on those areas which have higher levels of unemployment. That is what regional policy is about, whether it is regional policy implemented in England, Scotland or Wales.
    Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State accept that nearly 240,000 Scots were unemployed in May 1989 and that that figure is still 70 per cent. higher than the figure of 140,000 for May 1979? Clearly, there has not been a stunning 10-year success story in reducing unemployment. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the regime of high interest rates and cuts in regional aid is having a crippling effect on small and medium-sized businesses in Scotland? Treasury figures suggest that Scottish companies are facing a bill of £250 million in increased borrowing costs. Finally, why does the Secretary of State have to go to Wales to attack Thatcherism? Why does he not stand up in the Cabinet and urge lower interest rates, lower inflation and a sensible regional aid package?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that his views are not shared by Scottish industry. That is not surprising because manufacturing output in Scotland grew by more than 7 per cent. in 1988—the fastest rate of growth since 1973. The hon. Gentleman might also like to reflect on articles by the Fraser of Allander Institute which point to the fact that the Labour party's proposals for constitutional change would cause considerable damage to the Scottish economy.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what interest has been demonstrated by general practitioners in Tayside about the proposals in the White Paper covering general practitioner involvement in self-governing hospitals and for budgetary control of general practitioners' practices.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Interest has been expressed in developing a self-governing hospital and in GP practice

    305
    budgets. I welcome this wish to explore the opportunities offered by the White Paper and I have asked officials to pursue this with those concerned.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that since the interest was shown in Forfar, further interest has been shown in Blairgowrie and elsewhere in my constituency? Is he also aware that a number of local GPs are interested in setting up their own contracts and they have been in touch with me—[Interruption.] This is important and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can hear me—about the Government imposing the renegotiated contract of service for GPs because they believe that that is in the best interests of patients? That point has been made by several GPs in my area.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is so active in securing the best interests of his constituents in terms of primary care services. I am also delighted by the response that he referred to from GPs in his constituency. With regard to the GPs' contract, it is a matter of great regret that the conference did not support the position of the national negotiators on behalf of the GPs and the contract, which would have produced a fair deal for GPs and would have ensured that those GPs who provided preventive services were properly rewarded.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Why is the Minister in favour of self-government for hospitals, but not in favour of self-government for Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: On the connection between devolution and the interests of the Health Service, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party would do well to explain how the additional 25 per cent. which is spent on health care would be funded on the basis of his proposals which would ultimately lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Gentleman should appreciate that self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service while a Scottish assembly would prevent Scotland from remaining part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Galbraith: When does the Minister expect to be able to name the first hospital in Scotland to opt out of its health board? Does he agree that that hospital will be acting against the wishes of its staff? Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn the intimidation of hospital staff in Scotland by the managers who are hoping to get one hospital to opt out? Does he agree that the intimidation and the delay in announcing the name of the hospital reflects the fact that the proposals for hospitals to opt out have absolutely no support anywhere in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is wholly irresponsible for an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to talk about the intimidation of staff by management in the Health Service particularly when we have not asked health boards in Scotland to give an indication of hospitals that are interested in self-governing status. Lest I disappoint the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him that very shortly we will be issuing our proposals on self-governing hospitals and inviting general managers to put forward cases. The process of ensuring effective delivery of health care in Scotland is not helped by the kind of language from the hon. Gentleman that we have grown used to.

    Adam Smith Institute
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications he has had with Mr. Douglas Mason and the Adam Smith Institute; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have had a number of contacts with Mr. Mason and with the Adam Smith Institute. I have always found them stimulating and I hope that they will continue.
    Mr. Galloway: In any of those contacts was the Secretary of State spared Mr. Douglas Mason's bizarre and unbelievable idea that Hong Kong should be towed, lock, stock and barrel and relocated off the west coast of Scotland, on one of the western isles? As I listened to the radio interview, I thought that the man must be barking mad, until I realised that it was the same Douglas Mason who was the architect of the poll tax. Will the Secretary of State see whether there is a rocky outcrop somewhere on the edge of our territorial waters where Mr. Douglas Mason, the Adam Smith Institute and the trash Thatcherite ideas, which have no support in Scotland, might be relocated?
    Mr. Rifkind: I said that I always found Mr. Mason's views stimulating. I did not say that I always agreed with them.

    Nurses (Regrading)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the regrading of night nursing staff.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from members of the nursing profession. The new grading structure was agreed with the professional bodies and trade unions representing nurses, and it means that nurses are now rewarded for what they actually do. Nurses' pay has reached its highest ever level in real terms and nurses in clinical practice have better career prospects than ever before.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister recognise that, nevertheless, there is great resentment and a great loss of morale among nursing staff, particularly among those who are designated night duty, and that the grading appeals system does not deal with that? Does he accept that the management and unions agreed the new grading structure without consulting nurses and that they should now be consulted with a view to changing the grading to ensure that morale is restored?
    Mr. Forsyth: If doctors' and nurses' representatives, speaking on behalf of their professions, are to be criticised according to the agreements that they reach, it will make the Government's position extremely difficult. Night staff are treated on exactly the same basis as day staff. All clinical nursing posts are graded according to job content. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. All clinical nursing posts are graded according to job content and the level of responsibility carried. Night staff must meet the same criteria as day staff to qualify for the higher grades available, and there is nothing unfair in that.

    307
    In addition, night staff also qualify for special duty payments, which add 30 per cent. to the hourly rate for hours worked between 8 pm and 6 am, and 60 per cent. For
    308
    hours worked on Sundays or on public holidays. All of that is on a basis agreed by the staff representatives and the employers.

Hong Kong
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about Hong Kong, which I visited from 2 to 4 July.
I held extensive discussions with members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, with professional people, entrepreneurs, students and others.
There can be no doubt that the appalling events in Peking have badly shaken confidence in Hong Kong. It is of the first importance that the Chinese Government take early, tangible and sustained action to begin restoring confidence in China's intentions towards Hong Kong. We shall be pressing them strongly on this.
There has been understandable pressure on this country to grant a right of abode to all British passport holders in Hong Kong. I had to explain that this House would not support an indefinite and open-ended commitment of that kind. It would test our capacity in all kinds of areas—housing, employment, transport, inner-city services—on an unprecedented scale. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reached a similar conclusion. I was, however, able to assure the people of Hong Kong that we can and will take action in a number of matters.
First, on the question of nationality, we want to enhance people's confidence to remain. We are working urgently on a scheme which will make some provision for people in both the private and public sectors on the basis not simply of connections with Britain but the value of service to Hong Kong.
Secondly, at the European Council in Madrid we alerted our Community partners to Hong Kong's problems. I am also in direct touch with the other countries which will attend next week's economic summit in Paris. We shall continue there and elsewhere to mobilise the support of the international community.
Thirdly, I was able to confirm as common ground that the Joint Declaration, with its prospect of the greatest possible autonomy, remains the best foundation for Hong Kong's future. We have identified a number of ways in which Hong Kong's traditions of freedom can be further protected. In particular, there is scope for reviewing the rate of progress towards representative government. In this, the wishes of the people of Hong Kong will continue to be fundamental to our approach.
We favour a Bill of Rights entrenching essential freedoms. The Hong Kong Government are announcing today that they will introduce such a Bill as soon as possible. It will form part of the existing law and be able to continue after the transfer of sovereignty.
We shall take up with the Chinese Government two matters of special concern—article 18 of the draft Basic Law, which could enable the central Government in Peking to declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong after 1997 and, even more important, the question of the stationing in Hong Kong of Chinese military forces.
Events in China have overshadowed Hong Kong's most immediate practical problem—how to cope with the 48,000 boat people who have found shelter there. I visited two of the camps housing boat people and saw the screening of new arrivals now being conducted under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
310
The Hong Kong Government and people have dealt magnificently with an appalling problem, but Hong Kong is being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers. The vast majority of those reaching Hong Kong are not political refugees. They have no hope of being accepted for resettlement anywhere else in the world. Hong Kong cannot offer them a home or a livelihood.
At the recent conference in Geneva, resettlement pledges are made for all those who qualify as refugees. The report of the Select Committee recognised that it is intolerable for those who do not qualify as refugees to have to spend years in camps. Their only future lies back home. I have discussed this problem with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister both in Geneva and in London. Official talks are continuing. I am hopeful that we will be able to find a solution which enables boat people to return to Vietnam in safety and dignity.
Hong Kong's predicament reflects the facts of its history and geography. Those are inescapable, but, in approving the joint declaration, the House undertook to make the best possible provision for Hong Kong after 1997. We shall pursue the measures I have outlined with vigour as part of that wider and unchanged commitment.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: We welcome back the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary—Typhoon Geoffrey—after his eventful visit to Hong Kong. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kaufman: We trust that some of his experiences there will cause him to value all the more the balanced, restrained and positive approach to all subjects by Her Majesty's Opposition in the House. On the other hand, he will equally have learnt that the people of Hong Kong are capable of accustoming themselves speedily to democratic political activity. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said so little on that crucial issue. We trust that the Government will lose no time in making clear their acceptance of the Select Committee recommendation that 50 per cent. of the Legislative Council should be elected in 1991, with full democracy in 1995. We also support the Select Committee's advocacy of an elected Chief Executive, although we believe that he or she should be directly elected from the start.
I am glad to hear of the speedy introduction in Hong Kong of a Bill of Rights. People in Hong Kong asked for that when I was there, and no doubt they made the same demand of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
We hope that discussions on the Basic Law will resume quickly. While concerned that there should be no attempt on either side to unravel the Joint Declaration, which, if it is abided by, represents the best prospects for Hong Kong's future, it would be valuable if assurances could be obtained of firm Chinese adherence to the declaration and, if at all possible, of agreements by China to keep the People's Liberation Army out of Hong Kong.
The Opposition believe that it would not be right to offer any commitment to Hong Kong British dependent territory passport holders on the right of entry into the United Kingdom or the right of abode here. Others with an existing right of entry to the United Kingdom, which the Government refuse to honour—such as the dependants mentioned yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond)—have a much more specific and immediate claim. If there

311
are Crown servants in Hong Kong, at whatever level, who might feel or find themselves at risk as transfer to China approaches, of course it would be right for the Home Secretary to consider using his discretion under the Immigration Act 1971 in their favour on an individual basis. I am sure that this Home Secretary or his Labour successor would do so.
In the light of the scheme that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he is considering, I state clearly that the Opposition are against the creation of special favoured categories based on status or affluence. I agree with yesterday's statement by Dame Lydia Dunn that the creation of such categories would be divisive and difficult to defend. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if such categories are created a Labour Government would not necessarily be bound by them.
We believe that international action should be invoked to reassure Hong Kong citizens. I welcomed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance that this issue will be raised at the forthcoming Paris economic summit. I believe that it should be discussed in detail at the Commonwealth conference at Kuala Lumpur in the autumn and at the European Community Paris summit in December.
We believe that the United States has a special responsibility towards the Vietnamese boat people, whose plight stems directly from the consequences of the Vietnam war. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, like myself, had the unforgettable experience of visiting the boat people in their detention centres. I hope that any solution to this difficult problem will be based only on arrangements that recognise and uphold the human rights of those unhappy migrants, whether refugees or not.
While it would be wrong to take the view that China must be permanently excluded from the international community, I must make it clear that we believe that it would be absolutely wrong, after an indecent interval, somehow to pretend that the Peking massacres never happened. It would be a betrayal of the murdered thousands and the people of Hong Kong were we to return to business as usual with the guilty men of the forbidden city.
Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that there will be no Government support for the British-China Expo '89 due to be held in Peking in November or the major trade missions planning to go to China later this year, one of which boasts that it will be meeting Li Peng. We are told that the Department of Trade and Industry will be offering support to the participants in the trade missions and that official facilities will be drawn upon to the full. I hope that that offer will be withdrawn, as it would be unacceptable in the light of what has taken place in Peking.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is no question of anything but rejection of Peking's reported order from Britain of 170 military vehicles?
We urge the Government to stand up for the basic rights of the people of Hong Kong and to stand up against the reversion to barbarism in China, exemplified by the massacres and executions. As long as they do so, they shall have the support of the Opposition.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for
312
focusing, although not sequentially, on the extremely important and difficult aspects to which we must address ourselves.
Nobody could condemn more strongly than myself, except perhaps the people of Hong Kong, the events that took place in Peking just over a month ago. Yet it is the people of Hong Kong who are most concerned to secure from this House the right balance of response to those intolerable events in the light of the significant responsibility of China for their future. That is why I noticed with sympathy the right hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of continuing now to build upon the Joint Declaration, to recognise that there should be no attempt to unravel that and to proceed further to examine particular aspects of Basic Law. Those propositions that he urged upon me necessarily involve engagement with the people now in charge in China.
The people of Hong Kong are also concerned to secure the least possible damage to their economic vitality as a result of what has happened in China, because China is their largest trading partner and vice versa. Although I take seriously—as does the House, I am sure—the right hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which we deal with the present Administration in China, we must also not neglect the need to promote in every way we can the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
I noticed with interest what the right hon. Gentleman said about the future of democratic arrangements in Hong Kong. The people to whom I spoke there are, of course, conscious of the recommendations of the Select Committee in that respect. Frankly, they have not yet had time to address themselves to the implications for their own 24 May recommendations, which fell short of those put forward by the Select Committee. They emphasised that they would need further time to consider that, and that is why I emphasised that we must pay attention to their conclusions.
The Select Committee said:
"we also believe even more strongly that Hong Kong people must be allowed to decide on their own system of government before 1997 as well as after 1997."
Therefore, that must be the guide.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the announcement being made in Hong Kong today, and confirmed in this House, about the intention to implement a Bill of Rights as soon as possible. I am also grateful to him for the reminder, although I need no reminding, of the need for the Home Secretary to pay special attention and exercise discretion to Crown servants and others whose occupations may put them at risk or in jeopardy.
The right hon. Gentleman made two further observations which, 1 confess, I find it a little difficult to reconcile. He confirmed that there should be no automatic conferment of a right of abode to BDTC passport holders, which is a point supported by the Select Committee. At the same time, he was apprehensive about the consequences of having specially favoured categories. If by that he means a set of narrow categorised propositions, I understand his point. However, the Select Committee, and many of those to whom I spoke in Hong Kong, would like attention to be paid—even if not to the extent urged by them—to the role that can be played by assuring people in the public and private sectors, and more widely, to encourage them to

313
maintain their position in the Hong Kong economy. That is a matter to which many people attach a great deal of importance.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of the extent to which the United States should accept its fair share of responsibility for the Vietnamese boat people. The United States representative at the Geneva conference, Mr. Eagleburger, said:
"Those who flee clandestinely and cannot establish a well founded fear of persecution must understand that such flight no longer leads to resettlement. Such persons will face an indefinite stay in a holding camp."
He continued:
"It is important for those thinking of fleeing the former North Vietnam to realise that most will fail to qualify as refugees and will therefore not be eligible for resettlement."
But he stopped there, and, in our judgment, that is the wrong place at which to stop. If they are to be categorised in the way in which the United States and others have done, as not entitled to treatment as refugees, it must be right to try as we are doing, to secure a method for them to return to a secure future in their homeland.
Mr. David Howell: It is obvious, and has been for a long time, that it would be completely impractical for Britain to provide a right of abode for 3·25 million or many more Hong Kong people—a point which my right hon. and learned Friend has been making with great patience and courage in Hong Kong these past few days. Therefore, does he not share with me some regret that an orchestrated and expensive new campaign is yet again being mounted in Hong Kong and London to hammer home this single unattainable point?
Does not that distract the people of Hong Kong from concentrating on the many more positive possibilities which are now opening up for the future prosperity of Hong Kong, including persuading the international community to underwrite assurances for the future security of Hong Kong and providing passports for certain hard working key personnel to stay in Hong Kong. Contrary to the views of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), those people are not the elite or the rich, but those who are most dedicated and vital to maintain the administration of the territory in the coming years.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations and for the work of the Select Committee, over which he presided. He was quite right to draw attention, as he did in the Committee's report, to these two distinct factors: first, the importance of seeking the widest possible international assurances against an eventuality which we all hope will never happen; and secondly, as the Committee said, an immediate need to provide assurances to those people whose presence in Hong Kong, by reason of their skills and qualifications in both the public and private sectors, is vital to its continued prosperity. I hope that those who may be contemplating a sadly distracting campaign, of the kind to which my right hon. Friend referred, will think again about the wisdom of doing so.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I first welcome the Foreign Secretary's commitment to a Bill of Rights, and secondly, may I welcome the fact of his visit to Hong Kong? It clearly would have been much worse if he had not gone, but how much better it would have been if he had not gone with an empty hand and a closed mind. Surely his
314
total failure to reassure anyone in Hong Kong, from the most senior expatriate downwards, cannot but have the effect of undermining the credibility of our administration in Hong Kong, of accelerating the flight of capital and brains from the colony and of placing in jeopardy our long-term strategic interests in the entire area.
I ask the Government now if they will study the interesting report by Professor Bernard Corry, which outlines the economic benefits to Britain of honouring the right of abode, and I ask them for a response to it. Surely that is a much more rational way of approaching the delicate question of nationality than the sort of scaremongering that we have heard from the Government and from the Labour party.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is not very perceptive in his observations: he denounced my visit for having been undertaken with an empty hand, having immediately preceded that by congratulating me on the firm commitment to the Bill of Rights, which was one of several things on which I was able to give some assurance to the people of Hong Kong. I have dealt with the others in my statement.
If the right hon. Gentleman studies the Corry report, he will find that it deals separately with the economic aspect and that, in a very qualified judgment, it states:
"The feasibility of such a large migration therefore seems to be shown from an economic point of view".
It goes on to deal with what it calls management and logistical issues and clearly says that many of the problems that arise are exactly the same as those that I identified in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman would be wrong to conclude that the report offers any sort of support for his proposition, which is, on the whole, rejected on both sides of the House.
Sir Peter Blaker: Although the whole House understands the anxieties of the people of Hong Kong, may I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and say that it is perfectly clear to almost every Member of the House that Parliament would never pass the legislation necessary to give the right of abode to more than 3 million citizens of Hong Kong? I am sure that I speak for many friends of Hong Kong in the House when I ask whether it is not time, therefore, for the leaders of Hong Kong to study the alternative thoughts of my right hon. and learned Friend about an international operation to deal with the issue of abode, about how to push forward the Joint Declaration and obtain a good Basic Law, and about how to formulate a Bill of Rights—which, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, is an important proposal?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support in that respect. I think that he should not respond too unsympathetically to the position of the leaders of the people of Hong Kong. He will understand as well as anyone the impact of the shock of the past month on the attitude of those in the territory. He will also join me in acknowledging that they have already shown themselves capable of responding in many respects to the need for leadership which their people are expressing. I hope that they will respond—I have some confidence that they may—to the kind of advice that my right hon. Friend has given them. It is important that they should

315
understand that the advice on these issues coming from this House is fully appreciative of the immense difficulty of their present position in Hong Kong.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Whatever the validity of the treaty made long ago with a very different regime about the territory of Hong Kong, does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must at all costs uphold the right of self-determination of the people who now live there? Should not that right be emphasised in any negotiations with the Chinese Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right of self-determination, in the sense in which it can sometimes be expressed, cannot be applied in anything like the traditional sense to the territory and people of Hong Kong, because of the extent to which their position depends on a lease that runs out in 1997; but that does not undermine the importance of paying the utmost respect, as far as it is possible to do so, to the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. That is why we consulted them so closely in the evolution of the Joint Declaration, why we tried to secure their support for it, and why I now attach the greatest importance to the fact that, in this House and in Hong Kong, the Joint Declaration that we achieved is regarded by people on all sides as the best common ground on which to build for the future.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Is not one of the most important things that the Select Committee report reveals about the right of abode the fact that flexibility about those who could qualify to be British dependent territory citizens would mean that more than 5 million would qualify? That figure puts the problem into perspective. Given that background, does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that now is not the time to run a campaign through advertising, but a time for quiet reflection? Would not an early debate on the Select Committee's report send out a clear signal from the House that would be valuable for Hong Kong and the world?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I welcome my hon. Friend's first point. His second point is also important. It has been heard by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and will no doubt be taken into account in his preparation of future business.
Mr. Peter Shore: There are no easy answers to the anxieties and problems of the people of Hong Kong, but one important element, as the Foreign Secretary has already recognised, is the status of representative government in Hong Kong before the 1997 deadline. With that in mind, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it plain that the ascertained wishes of the people of Hong Kong will be what determine the timetable of the advance towards full democracy, rather than apprehensions about the reactions of the Chinese Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support generally for our approach to this matter. I take note of the important point that he makes. In my answers, I have tried to say that the actual shape of the representative institutions that are appropriate to emerge between now and 1997 is not a question on which opinion in Hong Kong has yet focused
316
with as much care and precision as people there would like. They would want to take account not only of the generally recognised need for faster progress, but of the need to secure stability into the future. Once they have formulated their views in that respect, Her Majesty's Government will be paying direct attention to what they have to say. It is already clear from what I have learnt this week that the arrangements to come into place in 1991 will need review in any event. That is quite apart from what may be necessary for the longer-term shape of the institutions.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Is not the best guarantee for Hong Kong people not to clamour to get out of Hong Kong, but rather to stay in Hong Kong, to develop and entrench their democracy, and to make Hong Kong the success that it undoubtedly can be? That success is the best guarantee, and the only long-term guarantee, of Hong Kong's future.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that respect. I underline the extent to which the future pattern in respect of the matters about which he is talking depends crucially on the need for the Chinese Government to recognise the great damage that has been done to confidence in Hong Kong by the dreadful events of a month ago, and for them to take early and sustained action to begin to repair that damage.
Dr. David Owen: While the Foreign Secretary is right to concentrate on the central importance of improved relations with China, the events in Tiananmen square will remain indelible. At the economic summit, will he attempt to get the other six nations to help China to remain on course for economic reform, but also tie it in to changes in the Basic Law and make it see the interrelationship of economic reform in China with a peaceful and sensible transition in 1997 in Hong Kong?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept the point put by the right hon. Gentleman, and have already been in direct communication with the Governments who will be represented at the economic summit next week. I have drawn their attention to the central economic point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. We need to leave those in China in no doubt of our abhorrence of what took place a month ago, but nevertheless we must refrain from action that can sever all links between it and the prospects of economic reform. That is a difficult road to strike, but it is the position precisely endorsed, as the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten, by the Madrid summit only a week ago. This is the prudent position. It is also important to secure the widest possible support for the measures advocated on both sides of the House on the Basic Law.
Dr. John Marek: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the solution to the problem of the Vietnamese boat people will be found when the Vietnamese realise that they have a stake in their country and wish to live in it? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will use his good offices to ensure that the necessary international agreements are obtained, Vietnam can be incorporated and reintegrated into the world community as a developing nation, and one that desperately needs substantial development aid—much of it from this country. If the Foreign Secreary agrees, what timetable can he suggest for those events?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that it is generally recognised that, if Vietnam is to join the ranks of those nations that might expect development aid, it will be necessary for her not only to begin taking effective action to receive her own people back into their country, but to secure the withdrawal of her army of occupation from Cambodia.
Mr. George Galloway: Give it back to Pol Pot.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House knows that the world will insist that, if Vietnamese troops withdraw from Cambodia, it must be on condition that Pol Pot and his cronies do not return to play any part there.
Another feature of the statements of Vietnamese Government spokesmen that is becoming increasingly clear is their recognition that the worst blight that they must remove from their own economy is the blight of Socialism, which produced the current disaster.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his courageous visit to Hong Kong, and on the emphasis that he has placed on the fact that the best hope for the future of the people of Hong Kong resides in a stable and prosperous Hong Kong? Will he take action to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the establishment of a constitutional court to sit in Hong Kong, interpreting in accordance with the traditional principles of British law rather than the political principles of the People's National Congress? If there is no confidence in the stability of the legal system, the future confidence of Hong Kong itself will not endure for long.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his support. I have noticed, as have others, the Select Committee's recommendation of a re-examination of article 157 of the Basic Law and the specific proposal for a joint constitutional court. It is too early to reach a conclusion on that. It would, I think, be unrealistic to expect the sovereign authority of the People's Republic to divorce itself entirely from the constitutional process at the last resort, but the further the matter can be taken along the lines advocated by my hon. and learned Friend the better.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that if all of us here were Chinese in Hong Kong, none of us would be as sanguine about our future as various hon. Members have been this afternoon? Is he aware that the reason why people are anxious to maintain the pressure for the right of abode is that everyone in his right mind knows full well that, in the period after 1997 when China resumes full sovereignty over Hong Kong, any agreements that he secures will not be worth the paper that they are written on if China decides to apply its sovereignty in the murderous fashion that we saw in Peking last month?
Let me ask the Foreign Secretary a final question: if the people in Hong Kong were white, would he take the same view that he has taken today?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am dismayed that the hon. Gentleman should descend so far as to make that last point, which is entirely unworthy of him and of the argument.
318
The assessment made by members of the Select Committee, and by many other Members of the House, rested on the sheer scale of the problem. The numbers involved could be well beyond 3·25 million—perhaps 4 or 5 million. The hon. Gentleman's other point has been manifest to most of us for very much longer than it seems to have been to him. The future of Hong Kong cannot be separated from that of China—the world's largest Communist country, on the very corner of which the people of Hong Kong have established a magnificent society. It is for that reason that we have all been working as hard as we have been—not with any undue optimism or sanguinity, but to achieve the best possible result for Hong Kong, as the House would wish.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the results of his visit has been to reassure the people of Hong Kong that Britain has not turned its back on their future? His visit will have reassured them that their future lies at the very forefront of his thinking and the thinking of all hon. Members. Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that what is most urgently needed in Hong Kong is restoration of confidence in the future? As he said, the future lies in Hong Kong's relationship with China. When, therefore, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it might he prudent to begin again the urgent discussions that are necessary if Britain, China and the international community are to provide a basis for the re-growth and rebirth of confidence in Hong Kong's future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first observation. Although I recognised that a lot of the message that I had to take to Hong Kong was bound to be seen as unwelcome, I was grateful for the fact that some of the most outspoken critics of views expressed in this House were the most outspoken in their thanks to me for having gone to Hong Kong. I am sure that it was right to take the opportunity to carry this dialogue forward. I certainly derived benefit from what they had to tell me.
As for my hon. Friend's second point, he is absolutely right that we need to promote the re-creation of confidence, but the Government of China have a leading part to play in that. I am not yet able to say when we can begin contacts of the various kinds that will be necessary—whether in the Joint Liaison Group, or in the Basic Law drafting committee, or more directly than that. It is important to achieve headway in that direction in a way that is compatible with all the other considerations that the House has in mind.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that friends of the Chinese people are appalled and saddened by the recent tragedy? However, there is no point, as some people have suggested, in Britain helping the people of Hong Kong in the distant future, if a disaster occurs. A disaster has already occurred. When the Chinese shot unarmed students in Peking, they shot the confidence of the people of Hong Kong. What is required now is the restoration of hope and confidence—hope by maintaining a dialogue with China and confidence not simply by alerting foreign countries, as the Foreign Secretary said, but by seeking immediate international guarantees of sanctuary for the people of Hong Kong, with Britain playing a leading role.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his advice. I know that he has played a leading part in establishing bilateral organisations between ourselves and the people of China, not least those connected with disability. He understands very well the basis of respect between the two peoples, which should form the basis of our relations. He is quite right to say that what happened in Tiananmen square did grave damage to many of those relationships. He is also right to urge the necessity for dialogue of the right kind with the people and the Government of China, along the lines that he suggests.
As for confidence, there, too, we shall certainly seek to do all that we can to promote confidence by dealing with the other nations that are of most importance, although it will be exceedingly difficult to translate that into precise numbers and timed guarantees.
Mr. Jim Lester: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the prospect of mandatory repatriation for the Vietnamese boat people is a very serious step? For many of them, particularly those in Da Nang province, his statement that their interests would best be served by staying at home means a return to abject poverty caused by war, the policies of their own Government and also natural disasters such as typhoons and other serious catastrophes which make their lives intolerable? If we are considering mandatory repatriation, is it not time to follow the advice of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in its 1986 report, which was to start to plan internationally how best to restore Vietnam to the family of south-east Asian nations and therefore give the people who are being forced back to Vietnam some prospect of a better standard of living than the one they have left?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I well understand my hon. Friend's long-term interest in the future of the people and country of Vietnam. I sympathise with the force of his point. It is encouraging to have the reluctant acceptance of the Select Committee that the logical consequence of a screening programme is the repatriation of those who have been screened out. It is important for us to couple that with every encouragement that we can give towards economic reform in Vietnam. As I have said already, it has to be coupled with the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia under terms well understood by the international community, and with a willingness to accept the people who are on their way back to their native land. Against that background, it is right to encourage Britain and the international community to look in the direction of the commencement of development aid.
Mr. James Lamond: Now that we have clearly established that the moral responsibility of the Government, Parliament and the people of Britain to the people of Hong Kong extends no further than doing what will cause us least discomfort, should we not drop the pretence that there is anything honourable about our stance? Should not the Foreign Secretary feel a little abashed about having to dress up his statement with proposals about extending democracy in Hong Kong and a Bill of Rights? He must recall, as I do, the many debates in the House over decades, when various propositions by Back-Bench Members were rejected out of hand, mainly on the basis that to extend democracy to Hong Kong would offend the Government of the Chinese
320
People's Republic? Surely the Foreign Secretary is not suggesting for a moment that those proposals will help the people of Hong Kong in their present distress.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman seems at odds with most other right hon. and hon. Members, as everyone has welcomed the measures that we have supported in my statement earlier today. He will recollect that the history of Hong Kong has always been a matter of special interest and has been so treated from both Front Benches.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard for the following business today, which is an Opposition day, and for the fact that we may be returning to this matter later. I shall take two more questions from each side.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Was my right hon. and learned Friend aware of any moves now in Hong Kong towards the realisation that the greatest test of leadership for those who represent the people of Hong Kong is facing up to the need to build up Hong Kong as a successful and stable province economically and socially, so that beyond 1997 they have the best chance of preserving two systems in one country? Was he able to reassure them that the Government will do all they can to help that process towards democracy—for example, by issuing a Green Paper on electoral law as the Select Committee proposed? Finally, will he reinforce his clear statement that he will do all he can with the Government in China to stress that military forces should not be based in Hong Kong beyond 1997, particularly on HMS Tamar?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly shall not neglect the importance of my hon. Friend's last point. In regard to a Green Paper on electoral reform, he will understand that all those matters are essentially for consideration and management by the Government of Hong Kong. I know from my discussions with them this week that they will be addressing themselves to that part of the agenda shortly, having felt it necessary to address other matters in the immediate aftermath of the shocking events of a month ago. I can certainly assure him that those in the leadership of the people and territory of Hong Kong are immensely aware of the importance of building up confidence in the territory in the years between now and 1997, and beyond. One of the most heartening features of the immense complexities and difficulties of this case is the quality, dedication, energy and skill of those who are currently leading the people of Hong Kong.
Mr. David Winnick: While one understands the perfectly justified feelings of concern in Hong Kong, feelings that we would share if we were living in Hong Kong, is it not in the overall economic interests of China that the agreement signed between Britain and China should be firmly adhered to from 1997? Despite the horrors of what has occurred in China recently, is it not likely that China has every intention of honouring that agreement?
But does not the Secretary of State agree that, first and foremost, China should show that it understands our revulsion at what occurred by ending its present policy of repression and terror? How confident is the Secretary of State that the Chinese leadership will agree that Chinese troops should not be stationed in Hong Kong after 1997?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I address myself to the general point made by the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot make any predictions about the response of the Chinese Government on that or any other point at this stage. It is clear, as a matter of logic and common sense, that it is massively in the interests of China for the Joint Declaration to be upheld and for Hong Kong's stability and prosperity to be maintained. That is the basis on which the declaration was entered into, and the basis on which we have commended its credibility, not only in Hong Kong but around the world. The actions taken by the Chinese Government a month ago plainly were not in the interests of China, its Government, its people or anyone else. Those actions, which plainly flew so much in the face of justice and common sense, did much to damage present confidence. I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's advice about the need to press China as strongly as we can to return to a true recognition of its interests in upholding the agreement.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a number of hon. Members were deeply concerned when we transferred the sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1984, and therefore affected the future of its people, without any meaningful discussions with them? Will he take seriously the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which were reinforced by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who said that the one way of re-establishing confidence in Hong Kong and guaranteeing its future is to implement a meaningful system of democracy, involving the franchise for all the people of Hong Kong, before the transfer of sovereignty in 1997?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the first point, my hon. Friend may not have observed the immense attention that we paid
322
at the time, in consultation after consultation with the people and the leaders of Hong Kong as well as hon. Members—
Mr. Winterton: The leaders, not the people.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: And the people, so far as it was possible to do so, and the House. The Joint Declaration was the result of consultation to such an extent that it is massively endorsed by people on all sides in Hong Kong as well as here as the true foundation for the future.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I am always ready and glad to receive advice from him on any subject. but the advice that one must regard as being more decisive is that which comes from Hong Kong.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about whether the Government will recognise the trade mission, and if so what extent, that is due to visit Peking later this year?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position of that mission is still under consideration, and will be addressed according to the conclusions set out at the end of the Madrid summit last week. We certainly shall not sustain fresh subsidised business, but it would be foolish—this is the strong advice that I have received from Hong Kong—to move in the direction of an economic embargo on the People's Republic of China.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will certainly bear in mind the claims of hon. Members who have not been called on the statement.

Rail Dispute
4.18 pm
Mr. Roger King: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"today's rail strike."
The matter raises a number of issues that deserve urgent debate, not only in respect of one-day stoppages but in the event of escalation of the present dispute. First there is the recalcitrant attitude that management and unions have adopted about negotiating terms. While they argue not about whether to talk but about where, the rest suffer.
Secondly, there is the question of the future of monopolies such as the railways and London Transport. Can we tolerate being held to ransom in this way? Should we not urgently discuss alternative structures? Is it not time to get on with opening up competition by privatising London Buses?
Thirdly, we must discuss how best to combat the effects of the stoppages. Extra car parking space merely exacerbates the problem of heavy traffic. More radical solutions are surely necessary if we are to fight back.
We need to establish a political consensus in tackling the wildcat strike, in the growing belief that such action by public service employees should be illegal. That means ascertaining the Opposition's views. If that leads them to a new set of principles, as with that adopted on nuclear weapons, it is all the more welcome.
Millions of our citizens are facing transport difficulties each week, with no apparent end in sight. Those difficulties and how to overcome them should be discussed by the House. Nothing is more urgent or relevant.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"today's rail strike."
I have listened to the hon. Member with care. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that the hon. Member has raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.20 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to recall that at Scottish Question Time this afternoon, following question No. 3 from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), you were kind enough to call me to ask a supplementary question? In reply to my question, the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—said that he was quoting from a private conversation. I therefore seek your guidance. First, have not you and many of your distinguished predecessors frowned upon the use of private conversations in the Chamber and is not the practice to be deplored, especially when it comes from a Minister? Secondly, as the Minister clearly misunderstood the name of the organisation about which I was seeking information and confused the Scottish Central Film Library with the Scottish Film Council, has he sought to withdraw the misleading impression that he gave the House, which remains the only decent thing for him to do and what the House would expect of him?
Mr. Speaker: I confirm that private conversations should be private. As for whether the Minister is prepared to withdraw his comment, that is not a matter for me.
Mr. John Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That was not the only occasion during Scottish Questions when some of us thought that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) did not match what most of us expect of Ministers or, in fact, from hon. Members on either side of the House. On one occasion, the hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to shut his mouth. That was the expression that he used. The Minister has a responsibility to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House to go to the Dispatch Box and apologise for his behaviour during Question Time.
Mr. Speaker: I certainly did not hear anything of that kind. We should move on.
European Community documents. Not moved.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Speaker: Not moved.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the 11 motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of London Authority and London Borough of Newham) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Walsall) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  325
  That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Thames Water Authority) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Transport Land) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Sheffield Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of Tyne Authority and British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Various Local Authorities) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Prevention of Child Abduction
4.22 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make satisfactory arrangements to prevent the illegal removal of children beyond the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts; and for connected purposes.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who have been working on behalf of representatives of children who have been abducted from the United Kingdom. I hope that, following today's discussion, all hon. Members with a common interest in this issue will join together to solve this growing problem.
On 22 May this year, in the spring Adjournment debate, I raised the case of my constituent, Mr. Colin Winstanley, whose children were removed from the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts without his consent and, so far as I can ascertain, without the active consent of the children. Both children were taken by their mother to the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, and over the past few months Mr. Winstanley has not been able to make satisfactory arrangements to see his children. With the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the children have been contacted belatedly and have expressed their desire to see their father and grandparents.
Tragically, Mr. Winstanley and his children are part of a growing army of forgotten people caught up in the Pied Piper world of child abduction. The tug of love syndrome means that 500 or more of our nation's little children are stolen, kidnapped and abducted each year, leaving a trail of grief-stricken mothers and sometimes fathers, in their wake.
Child abduction is a special crime, mainly involving parents—or sometimes grandparents—acting out of a perverted or overwhelming sense of love, fear of losing custody proceedings or desire to seek revenge in the wake of a broken relationship. The problem is growing and I contend that it has reached epidemic proportions.
On 12 June 1987, Law magazine reported on the issue, saying that it was estimated that between 200 and 500 cases occurred each year. It continued:
"The scale of the problem flows from the increase in the number of international marriages and the high rate of separations, combined with ease of travel and employment overseas—and the belief of parents who have been denied custody here that the abduction of their children will result in a more favourable order in another country."
The problem is not confined to marriages where there is an international element. In August 1981, Jean Burt's British ex-husband flew out to Kuwait with her son Graham and instead of returning home from his holiday, he remained in Kuwait. She went to Kuwait and got a wardship order from the local courts. She held an English wardship order of custody which was finally recognised by the Kuwaiti authorities. She obtained an order for them to direct her husband to give up the child and to return him to the United Kingdom in April 1983. Unfortunately, there are few such instances of a successful conclusion in abduction cases. Moreover, Jean had to raise £13,000 for the return of her child. Even if the other country is prepared to co-operate, the child usually remains abducted and outside the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts unless the mother has substantial resources at her disposal.

327
In the cases with which I and other hon. Members have dealt, one has an overwhelming feeling of helplessness. One sees the home without the child, with quiet, well-kept bedrooms, but none of the loving clutter of children, none of the screams of joy, the tears, the smell that always accompanies the child, the hugs or the feelings of warmth and safety. They are all denied to the parent and child who have been dragged from each other in a moment of madness and despair. It is almost as though the child has died and one sees the small shrine of photographs and toys. But it is worse than that. There is an unconsolable grief which cannot be exorcised.
Parliament has a special responsibility to the nation's children. We must act as their guardians and defenders in a real sense and, in the final analysis, be their ultimate liberators, acting to return them to the United Kingdom. Despite the admirable sentiments behind the Hague convention and the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, the abduction of our nation's children is on the increase. So far, the equivalent of three average-sized primary schools have been emptied of their pupils. More than 500 children are missing, never to be returned home and often living in socially hostile and disorienting environments. Sadly, many hon. Members of all parties are coming to the conclusion that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not want to meddle in so-called "family affairs". The children are regarded as a diplomatic embarrassment and a nuisance which could interfere with diplomatic relations.
The 1985 Act has, in practice, failed to protect hundreds of innocent little victims of the unique social crime of child abduction. As recently as 1 July this year, a report in The Independent investigating the issue said of the Act:
"In practice, the children's return is rarely prompt; case after case has been trapped in the morass of competing legal systems and bureaucracies. To pay for travel, accommodation, legal costs and, where the husband has gone underground, a private investigator, requires considerable private funds, which most of these women simply do not have."
The Foreign Office has stated that it is vital that taxpayers' money should not be wasted. That is rich indeed, from a Government who have spent millions of pounds chasing around the courts of the world to prevent publication of various memoirs about the secret service. If such resources are at the Lord Chancellor's disposal, they
328
should be used to chase around the courts of the world on behalf of little children who have been abducted and wish to return to the United Kingdom but cannot do so.
In 1984, Lord Brandon was reported as saying in the House of Lords:
"I see no good reason why, in relation to the kidnapping of a child, it should not in all cases be the absence of the child's consent which is material, whatever its age may be. In the case of a very young child, it would not have the understanding or the intelligence to give its consent".
Abduction removes the child's right to consent. The challenge that my Bill seeks to address is the child's inability to have a say about its abduction.
The Bill will have four main provisions. The first is the establishment of a children's ombudsman to provide legal aid, advice and assistance to retrieve children currently illegally abducted to places outside the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts. The ombudsman will also provide advice about preventing abduction and will mediate between the Governments and legal systems of the countries to which children have been abducted.
Secondly, the Bill will provide resources to reunite the National Council for Abducted Children with other voluntary self-help groups. Thirdly, the Bill will seek to amend current court practices and will provide for the issuing of advice to judges to ensure the automatic surrender of passports to the courts during custody proceedings and the automatic entry of child custody decisions in the passports of the parents or guardians and of the children concerned.
Fourthly, the Bill will seek the establishment and maintenance of a register of abducted children, because at the moment we do not even know how many children have been abducted.
If the House were to fail in this matter, and if the Government were to fail to take action, a blot would be left on the character of the House and a stain on the nation's conscience.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Gerry Steinberg and Ms. Dawn Primarolo.

Prevention of Child Abduction
  PREVENTION OF CHILD ABDUCTION
  Mr. Ian McCartney accordingly presented a Bill to make satisfactory arrangements to prevent the illegal removal of children beyond the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 164.]
Opposition Day
  16TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Training
    4.32 pm
    Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
    That this House, noting the fiasco of Employment Training which has reached only 40 per cent. of the Government's target and now has a drop-out rate of nearly 50 per cent., as both employers and trainees reject the programme as under-funded, poor quality and low-paid, and noting that job-related training for 16 to 19 year olds have been constantly falling in recent years, calls on the Government to remedy the growing skills shortage by investment in training which matches the funding, quality, skills and economic commitment of the United Kingdom's major competitor countries.
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Meacher: In 1992, with the advent of the internal market, Britain will face economic pressures at least as intense and competitive as those we faced on our entry to the Common Market 16 years ago. The coverage and quality of our skills training will then become one of our key economic weapons. It is the contention of the Opposition that the Government have consistently and drastically failed to develop that aspect of the country's economic defences so that today we have an adult training programme which is spurned by employers and trainees alike and which is poised to collapse before it has reached even half its target.
    There was no lack of ministerial hype at the programme's inception last September, when the Secretary of State for Employment said:
    "Employment training is the largest and most ambitious training programme ever undertaken, and the scope and opportunity it offers to longer-term unemployed people is unrivalled anywhere in the world."
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Hear, hear.
    Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," which serves to make my point.
    However, the reality is rather different. Five months after the programme started, the Financial Times reported:
    "The Government is cutting the number of places on its employment training scheme by 10 per cent. because not enough people have joined."
    On the same day, The Independent reported that more than 70 local authorities of all political persuasions had withdrawn from the scheme. One of those, the Tory-controlled council covering the Prime Minister's constituency, closed its 400-place ET scheme. A report prepared by officials at Barnet council, which was endorsed by councillors, stated:
    "One of the factors blamed for the failure was that most participants in the old Community Programme, where maximum earnings are £60 a week, refused to switch to ET where they are allowed only normal benefit plus £10 expenses."
    That confirms everything that the Opposition have always said.
    330
    The Secretary of State's TV extravaganza got it slightly wrong. To the bars of what I can only describe as somewhat incongruous music, the extravaganza proclaimed:
    "We'll train the workers without jobs to do the jobs without workers."
    It really meant:
    "We'll train the workers without jobs to do the jobs without wages."
    At the launch of ET on 1 September last year, the Secretary of State made his objective very clear. Amid enormous media fanfare, he declared:
    "Employment training will provide training for some 600,000 people a year."
    Nine months on, by which time the target of 450,000 places should have been filled, only 187,000 places have been filled. The Government have achieved just 41 per cent. of their target. However, internal confidential Department of Employment management papers, which I have seen, paint a bleaker picture. They show that no fewer than 117,000 people have already dropped out of the scheme and that there is an overall dropout rate of no less than 46 per cent. Worse still, the dropout rate is accelerating fast. In January the dropout rate was 36 per cent. In February it was 41 per cent. In March it was 57 per cent. and in April—the last month for which figures are available—it was 75 per cent.
    The Secretary of State may well screw up his face, because those figures come from his Department. If the trend continues, the number of leavers each month will soon be larger than the number of starters. On that evidence, the number of trainees on ET could begin to fall before the scheme's first anniversary—ET's first anniversary could also be its last.
    At the start of the scheme, the Secretary of State was full of overblown rhetoric about the employers' response. On 29 December, according to a Department of Employment press notice, he announced:
    "Britain's biggest companies have given Britain's biggest adult training programme a ringing endorsement into the New Year."
    A little earlier, he was carried away enough to state:
    "The response from providers to the challenge of Employment Training has been magnificent, and the Training Commission now has in place a comprehensive network of training agents and training managers."
    Six months later, on 12 June, in answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Secretary of State was forced to admit the truth behind the billboard waffle. He had to admit that only 13 major companies had signed up with ET on a national scale and that only two of them had filled more than half the places for which they had contracted. If the employers' response has been so magnificent, why has Habitat contracted for 200 places, but filled none of them? Why has Mothercare contracted for 50 places but filled none? Why has Heron Service Stations contracted for 81 places but filled only one?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is either knowingly deceiving the House or deceiving himself. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Secretary of State can make some amendments to what he has just said.
    Mr. Fowler: Of course I will. The hon. Gentleman is mis-stating the position. He has just given the impression —all hon. Members have heard it—that only 13 major companies have been associated with employment

    331
    training. That is the clear implication. He is quoting only one part—that is, the numbers who are with the large companies unit of the Department of Employment. One hundred and twenty major companies, and 1,000 companies over all, have contracted to do employment training. That is why what the hon. Gentleman has said is deeply misleading. His remarks about the numbers are also misleading. He is either doing that intentionally or without knowledge. He is confusing the number of filled places with the throughput in employment training. What he has stated so far is very misleading.
    Mr. Meacher: I obviously asked a rather pointed and embarrassing question. I was quoting from the answer that I was given. It is the right hon. Gentleman himself who says that only 13 companies have joined up with ET nationally. That is the fact and that is what he said only three weeks ago.
    Mr. Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: I will give way once more.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman can at least concede that what I have said—that is, that 120 major companies are working with ET—is truthful.
    Mr. Meacher: In that case, why was that not in the original answer? Why is it that the answer that I quoted were the right hon. Gentleman's words?
    Mr. Fowler rose—
    Mr. Meacher: I will not give way again. The right hon. Gentleman has a lot more explaining to do, so we will reserve the opportunity for him.
    Perhaps he could explain also the findings in the report of the Institute of Manpower Studies, which was commissioned by his own Department and which he so coyly refuses to publish. The institute interviewed 40 large companies, not just the 13 that I have been talking about. Most of them employ more than 1,000 people—precisely the group about whom the right hon. Gentleman is talking —but they did not give ET the ringing endorsement that the right hon. Gentleman claimed. In no uncertain terms, they criticised the Department of Employment's Training Agency for its
    "excessive inflexibility, jargon, bureaucracy and confusion."
    I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that that is what they think.
    The right hon. Gentleman also had pretensions that the scheme would be attractive for the unemployed. In September, he announced with great flourish that
    "it will offer training at every level from basic skills to technician level skills, and will enable unemployed people to acquire the skills they need to find and keep work."
    The reality six months later, as The Guardian reported on 24 March, under a headline "Unemployed shun ET", is that
    "Targets on the Government's … Employment Training scheme … have been drastically reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent. in some parts of the country because of poor demand for places."
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: I will not give way. I want to get on; it is a short debate.
    332
    At about the same time, the Financial Times reported:
    "Employment Training … is facing mounting difficulties in attracting trainees in the north-east, an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country."
    It went on to state that in Cleveland, for example,
    "only 81 of the 450 places with employers have been filled."
    It is altogether a sobering and humiliating story, yet the Government's advertising blurb still continues to take on a life of its own, divorced from any reality
    "Custom-made to give people the skills they need for tomorrow's jobs"
    is another of the Government's slogans. What happens on the ground is a rather different story. I recently received a letter from a man in Wales who applied to go on ET for agricultural maintenance, with a view to starting his own business. In his own words, this is what happened to him:
    "Day 1. Went to local office at 9 am, filled in two forms and sat until 4 pm. The woman in charge was a senior team leader who was also on a training scheme, and appeared to have no idea why I or anyone else was there.
    Day 2. Reported at 9 am sat around till 3.30 went home.
    Day 3. Same routine, but had fire drill.
    Day 4. Same routine—despite repeated inquiries, could obtain no information regarding the training programme.
    Day 5. Finally visited training centre forty-one miles away …
    The workshop was … an old shed, with rubbish strewn about, bits of steel, old engine parts and no clear working surfaces … The gas cutting gear had perished pipes, and there was no evidence of goggles; the electrical equipment had no safety cut-outs. The only supervisor I saw was also responsible for a hundred and forty acres, two workshops, livestock and twelve trainees. There was no trained instructor, in fact they are advertising for one.
    Trainees on farm work were left unsupervised to drive tractors with no brakes or safety frames, one trainee was operating a mechanical digger with the engine overheating to such an extent that steam was coming from it."
    In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that was a rather special or one-off letter, I have had a mass of letters about ET, which would be almost funny if the matter were not absolutely depressing. In the Wirral, a trainee painter and decorator was taught by unqualified people who previously worked in landscape gardening. In London, two unemployed people who wanted to be a chef and a bricklayer were sent on an amateur video-making course because there was nothing else available. In Liverpool, a car mechanic was working in a swimming pool—presumably not on a car—and a trainee refrigerator engineer was sent to insulate lofts.
    One might have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have responded to those inanities with a measure of humility by redoubling his efforts to make his ET course rather more relevant and appropriate. What he has redoubled is the advertising budget, which is now running at a cool £9 million. The right hon. Gentleman has told training managers who provide the training to adjust not the relevance of their ET courses but their publicity. They have been told to provide the Department of Employment with "good news stories" which
    "it is essential that we publicise."
    He even had the bright idea of asking "ET graduates" to participate in an "ET roll of honour" which is to be
    "displayed prominently for maximum publicity in unemployment benefit offices and job centres".
    Instead of all the ludicrous and false packaging to conceal a massive failure on the ground, and instead of the glossy advertising costing £9 million, the right hon. Gentleman would do far better to direct taxpayers' money

    333
    and his own Department's efforts to improving the lamentable quality of training on ET and giving employers and trainees a proper deal.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I do not know whether it is just a further example of the county of Kent being superior to any other place in the country, but the experience of ET in my part of Kent is almost unidentifiable with the hon. Gentleman's. I would be interested to hear whether he has letters of that kind from Kent.
    Mr. Meacher: I am sure that we shall be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman if he can produce some real examples, because clearly he is embarrassed by the roll call of disasters that I have mentioned. I will be surprised if Kent does not have its disasters, too.
    The Government's propaganda on ET is riddled with manipulation and deceit. The Government profess to favour the training of married women to fill the demographic gap. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), said a week ago:
    "Employers must look beyond traditional sources of recruitment to provide the workforce of the 1990s. Ninety per cent. of the growth in the labour market in the 1990s will be women and many of these will be women 'returners'."
    The point is that the Government refuse to make married women eligible for ET child care allowances. When Kay Jackson, a married woman with three pre-school aged children, challenged that at an industrial tribunal in January as being in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act, she won. But what did the Secretary of State then do? Instead of extending ET child care allowances to married women, he took them away from single parents who already received them.
    The Government profess to he in favour of developing the voluntary sector, yet ET is destroying it. In Birmingham, the Voluntary Services Council was forced to close its 400-place ET scheme earlier this year. Only two months ago, the Council for Social Action in Manchester, which in the north had been a flagship project with 1,000 trainees, was forced into liquidation with £500,000 of debts and was forced to make 200 staff redundant. In April of last year, 220,000 community programme workers were in post performing a whole range of social and community services. Now there are only 97,000 ET trainees in such project-based services. That decline has had a devastating impact on community provision for the most disadvantaged in our society, such as the elderly and the disabled, which had been built up on community provision funding, and is now being destroyed.
    If Britain is being miserably served by ET in meeting adult training needs for 1992, youth training is being handled with an equal lack of drive and imagination. The right hon. Gentleman keeps telling us about the demographic gap. We all know that there will be a 25 per cent. shortfall in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds over the next five years. However, the right hon. Gentleman then proposes to fill that gap with more married women, while denying them child care allowances, or with more older workers, while focusing ET on the under-50s.
    What the right hon. Gentleman will not accept is the obvious policy of upgrading YTS and ridding it of its deserved label of cheap labour. The fact is that still less than 30 per cent. of trainees who leave YTS obtain a vocational qualification; still the general experience is of
    334
    low-cost training, patchily equipping young people with skills that are not in short supply; and still, as the Confederation of British Industry reminds us in its report today, more than 100,000 16-year-olds enter the labour market every year with no training at all.
    The past two years have shown that it is still true that three quarters of YTS trainees drop out of the scheme prematurely and that Britain still has a participation rate for 16 and 17-year-olds in education and training trailing 20 to 30 per cent. behind that of our main competitors in Germany, the United States and Japan. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is supporting that.
    The Government's sole answer to those manifest deficiencies of training, as in every other sector, is privatization—selling off the skill centres and replacing the training agency by employer-dominated training enterprise councils. In fact, the sale of skill centres has nothing to do with improving the quality of training, but it has everything to do with asset stripping on the model of Royal Ordnance. The management buy-out covers only 20 of the 58 skill centres, and I understand that for the rest there is such lack of interest that probably one third of the sites will not even have a bidder unless they are given the incentive of a quick property killing—such as at Twickenham, Perivale and Slough, along the M4 corridor, or Lambeth skill centre in the middle of docklands, which I understand already has B2 planning permission now granted for any office or industrial development.
    It is characteristic, but shameful, that the Government are far more interested in selling off the country's training assets than in investing in high-quality training to match our competitors. However, the TECs are not proving popular even with the employers who will control them. Presumably the Prime Minister thought that their appeal would be irresistible when, in the blaze of publicity at the launch of the TEC prospectus in March, she called on British employers to recreate the traditions of the medieval guild system
    "when father taught son … and when apprentices learned from their masters."
    However, I am glad to note that the reintroduction of master-servant grading holds less attraction for employers than for the Prime Minister as an obvious model for training.
    It is employers, not just the unions, who have been expressing considerable disquiet about both the impact and representativeness of the TECs. It is employers who are complaining that the creation of 80 self-governing TECs will lead to the fragmentation of training and the undermining of industrywide and national standards. I understand that the Government are apparently now even proposing to phase out the approved training organisers, who are the one sure guarantee of quality control. It is employers who have been saying that they fear that the TECs are a smoke screen to disguise the Government's retreat from funding industrial training.
    It was, in fact, the employers, in a letter from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to the right hon. Gentleman in February, who disowned the TECs by complaining:
    "there will be no mechanism by which it can be ensured that TEC boards, once appointed, do not become self-perpetuating and take decisions in isolation from the local … communities."
    Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: No, I would prefer to finish. Owing to the earlier business, there is a shortness of time in this debate.
    With friends like that, it is scarcely surprising that out of the 100 TECs that the Government were originally planning, they have had only 22 applications from employers. It is scarcely surprising also that the flagship TECs which were planned for London and Birmingham have been ignominiously postponed indefinitely due to in-fighting and inefficiency.
    Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
    Mr. Meacher: No, I am going to finish.
    Not only have the three that have been planned for London been put on ice, but the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not giving way.
    Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has not even been able to get off the ground the Birmingham TEC covering his constituency.
    There can be no sharper difference between the political parties than in policies on training. Under this Tory Government, British companies now spend on training only one third of what is spent by German companies. Only 30 per cent. of our work force have recognised qualifications equivalent to one O-level, compared with 70 per cent. in Germany. Yet the Government are intending to cut YTS funding by £25 million this year in cash terms and to cut the real resources for ET over the next three years.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way. I shall finish.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he will not give way. This is simply wasting time, when there is very little of it.
    Mr. Meacher: Labour, by contrast, proposes a detailed programme to transform Britain's training culture. YTS will be replaced by a traineeship scheme offering recognised qualifications and quality training for up to four years. All employers will be required to promote training for their staff, setting a minimum number of hours training that each employee should expect each year. In addition, we also propose an opportunity training programme open to all adults who wish to retrain in skills of regional economic need or national importance.
    Because we recognise that a national training strategy has been conspicuous by its absence in the past 10 years, because we recognise that such a strategy is vital to Britain's future and because we are determined to implement it, we shall press this motion tonight.
    4.59 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
    "noting that Employment Training is the largest and fastest growing training programme for adults ever mounted in this country, and noting the success of YTS in equipping young people for jobs or further education, and the record scale of
    336
    public resources devoted to training, welcomes the Government's achievements in improving the quantity and quality of training in Britain and the major further steps it now proposes to take to meet the training needs of the 1990's.".
    The speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was almost barren of any suggestion, until his last words. Above all, it was wrong in every aspect of every area that it covered. The hon. Gentleman was wrong about employment training, he was wrong about YTS, he was wrong about the Skills Training Agency and, above all, he was wrong about the training and enterprise councils. When the hon. Gentleman talks of a lack of enthusiasm for TECs, one wonders where he has been for the past few months. There has been a tremendous enthusiasm for them and I must tell the House that the first application for a TEC came from Oldham, the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman was as wrong about the TECs as he was about every other issue he raised.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Floor has been held for 27 minutes by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. The Labour party has just published its policy review, and although all sides of the House recognise the importance of training, we have listened to a 27-minute speech that was devoid of any new proposals to take training forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an absolute disgrace?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes. In every respect the speech was revealing of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and of the way in which he leads for the Opposition in this matter.
    I welcome the opportunity to debate training, because, as my hon. Friend has said, no issue is more important for the future economic prosperity of the country. It is crucial that we take steps now to ensure that we have the supply of skills that our economy will need in the 1990s and beyond. Training is the key to economic growth, to jobs and to prosperity. That is the case for training, and I welcome this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to it.
    The Opposition have shown a curious sense of timing in choosing to debate training on this particular day when the railways and much of London have been crippled by strikes. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman talked so freely about the national interest in relation to training, when he is so blind to the national interest in relation to strikes. It is especially curious that the hon. Gentleman freely condemns everything that the Government have done for training when he is so reluctant to condemn trade union leaders for calling strikes that bring hardship to thousands of people.
    When the hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of employment and training, does it occur to him that strikes were one of the main reasons why we lost so many jobs in the 1970s? We are not prepared to take any lectures from him on training, any more than we are prepared to take any lectures from him on industrial relations.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is speaking for the Labour party, given that, last September, there were grave differences between the hon. Gentleman and the leader of his party and between him and the trade unions?
    Mr. Fowler: It would not be right for me to speculate on that as I have no intention of intruding on the private grief of the Opposition on this matter.

    337
    The necessary background to this debate is the employment situation. It is important to consider the current situation and how it will develop in the 1990s to draw lessons for training. In the past two years, the employment situation radically improved. Unemployment has now fallen for 34 consecutive months. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would welcome that reduction rather than laugh at it. Since the general election, unemployment has fallen by more than 1 million, and unemployment in this country is now well below the European Community average. During the past two years, long-term unemployment has fallen by a record 500,000 and it is falling faster than the rate of general unemployment. That is of special significance to employment training and to other adult programmes.
    Mr. Meacher: What about training?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must understand that employment is the background to training.
    During the past two years, unemployment among young people under the age of 24 has fallen by 41 per cent. and it is now half the EC average. It has fallen so much and so quickly because we have had an unprecedented increase in jobs. Now, 26·5 million people are at work in this country, more than ever before in our history. During the past six years, nearly 3 million new jobs have been created, and job opportunities have improved dramatically. That is illustrated by the fact that there are about 600,000 job vacancies in the economy now. In the space of a few years, we have moved from a position of labour surplus to one of potential shortage, particularly among the groups on whom employers have traditionally relied for their skilled and qualified staff.
    Just as important are the profound demographic changes that are now taking place and which will affect every profession and every occupation. In the next five years, the number of school leavers coming on to the labour market will fall sharply. The number of 16 to 19-year-olds in the population will have fallen by more than 1 million between 1983 and 1993, and shows no sign of returning to its previous level. Therefore, we must make full use of our potential in this country. We must bring new recruits into the labour market.
    The major message is that training must be at the top of the agenda. Training is as vital for young people as it is for unemployed people to bring them into employment. Training is also vital for employed people to enable them to develop their full potential. Unless the case for training is set against the background of employment, we are debating in a vacuum. It is foolish to argue otherwise.
    Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend probably has not heard the extremely good news from Cleveland today, where one firm has announced a £80 million investment and the creation of 1,000 jobs, while another has announced a £50 million investment and the creation of 600 jobs.
    Mr. Fowler: That is good news, and I hope that even the Opposition, in their present mood, will feel inclined to welcome that.
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are distinct regional differences in training needs? Much of today's argument recognises that those differences are vast. The
    338
    national scheme has missed the boat completely and has failed to recognise that the long-term unemployed have particular training needs different from those in employment. When will the Government give local authorities the opportunity to develop training needs to suit local requirements and thus the opportunity to move away from the national scheme that has missed everybody?
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has, reasonably succinctly, put the case for training and enterprise councils. The point of those councils is that we are devolving power to the local areas. It is crucial that this problem should not be left merely to schools and colleges. Improvements are obviously important, and the reforms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will undoubtedly improve the position. We should remember that eight out of 10 people who will be in the work force in the year 2000, are already in the work force and have left the education system. Side by side with education reform, we need the training reform which is now taking place.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West was scathing about employers' contributions, and unfairly so. He fails to recognise that employers already spend about £18 billion a year on training, which gives the lie to the claim that we are suffering from employer neglect. The true position is shown by the evidence—
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones rose—
    Mr. Fowler: May I continue?
    The true position is clear from the evidence in the labour force survey which was published earlier this year and showed the number of people receiving training. Those figures, which specifically exclude people on Government training programmes, show that the number of people in training has risen significantly in each of the past five years. The number of people in training during the relevant four weeks—taking a snapshot of that period —increased from 1·8 million in 1984 to 2·8 million in 1988. That is the figure for a four-week period, not the 12-month period. During the period from spring 1984 to spring 1988, the number of people in training rose by more than 50 per cent. That is the trend —
    Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
    Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way. I have given way several times already—indeed, far more often than did the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
    The latest labour force survey shows that the number of people receiving training has risen for every age group. It also shows that 70 per cent. of those in training are receiving part of their training away from the job. Those figures show that employers are increasing their investment in training and that the number of trainees is growing year by year.
    Mr. Grocott rose—
    Mr. Fowler: I have made it clear that I shall not give way.
    Mr. Grocott rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has constantly made it clear that he is not giving way and such behaviour is merely consuming time in this short debate.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West tried to play down the Government's contribution to training. Again, the facts simply do not support what he said. In each of the past five years, the Government have spent about £3 billion on training programmes. If we contrast that with the record of the last Labour Government, we find that between 1974 and 1979, expenditure on training was £500 million. In real terms, we are spending three times more than the last Labour Government. The position for young people today is a far cry from the black days of the collapse of apprenticeships at the end of the 1970s. Today, more than 386,000 young people are being trained under the youth training scheme. They are to be found in every sector of the economy and at all levels of skill.
    Since YTS began in 1983, well over 2 million young people have been trained through this programme, and more than 1 million have been trained since the two-year YTS began in April 1986. Some 63 per cent. of people who complete the two-year YTS gain vocational qualifications and more than 80 per cent. of them go into jobs or further training. By any standard, that is a substantial achievement.
    Mr. Grocott: Before the Secretary of State continues with his selective use of statistics and boasting, will he confirm the disgraceful reply given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State a week or so ago, when asked about the level of engineering apprenticeships in the west midlands area, about which he should know something. He said that, since 1979, the level of engineering apprenticeships in the west midlands had collapsed by 50 per cent. Will the Secretary of State apologise to the House for that appalling record on real skills training, for which the Government bear the responsibility?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall not do that, because we now have almost 400,000 young people in training. However attached the hon. Gentleman may be to the apprenticeship scheme, one reason why that scheme collapsed was the inflexibility of the apprenticeships, which meant that, whatever happened, the scheme was going to change.
    With the decline in the number of school leavers entering employment, it is more essential than ever to establish firm and constructive links between schools and employers, and to ensure that young people starting work for the first time can achieve the educational standards which employers seek and have access to proper training when they move into employment.
    For those reasons, I am announcing today that the Government have agreed to support a further 11 inner-city compacts. The essence of the compact is that employers guarantee jobs with training for school leavers who reach specified levels of attainment while in full-time education. The first 30 compacts have made an excellent start, and the response of employers, young people and schools has been enthusiastic. More than 230 schools will be taking part in compacts this September, covering 30,000 young people. Well over 1,000 employers and many training organisations have agreed to support compacts by offering guaranteed jobs and training. The Government are providing more than £16 million to support the development of compacts over the next four years.
    I have no doubt that the compacts are an important development. They show how young people can benefit from a partnership between employers and schools to
    340
    ensure that achievements in full-time education are rewarded by training and jobs and, most importantly, point the way to a much closer and more constructive link between school and employment, which can only be to the benefit of young people and employers alike. I recognise too that there is even further potential the development of new compacts.
    I turn now to the issue of the training of unemployed people over the age of 18. The wording of the motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West shows an ignorance of the nature and purpose of employment training. The programme was originally designed by the Manpower Services Commission for a maximum of 300,000 people in training at any one time. Employment training now has nearly 200,000 in training. That has been achieved after the programme has been in operation for less than 10 months. Even the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic will tell him that 200,000 is a good deal more than 40 per cent. of 300,000.
    To have achieved 200,000 filled places in less than 10 months in a programme starting virtually from scratch is an enormous achievement. No previous programme has come remotely near this rate of expansion. For example, the community programme had managed to fill only 57,000 places after it had been in operation for nine months. Furthermore, since I announced the decision to introduce employment training in November 1987, unemployment has fallen by nearly 800,000, and longer-term unemployment has fallen faster than unemployment generally. There has been a huge reduction in the group of people for whom the programme was designed.
    That is regarded as good news by everyone except the hon. Member for Oldham, West and one or two of his hon. Friends. It makes the achievement of 200,000 filled places in employment training after less than 10 months of operation all the more remarkable. Almost 40 per cent. of those starting on the programme have been unemployed for more than two years.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West repeated his claim that employers are turning their backs on employment training. That is wholly without foundation. He is confusing the figures that he asked for on the national contracting arrangements with the overall figures for employers. More than 1,000 employers are providing training places under employment training; about 120 major employers are involved; 27 major employers have contracted with my Department to provide the full range of training under ET. They include companies such as Ferranti, Grand Metropolitan, Pilkington, Laing, Comet and Wimpey—
    Mr. Tony Lloyd rose—
    Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman waits a minute, he will find out something.
    Between them, these major employers have contracted to provide almost 15,000 places. Some contracted fairly recently, but almost 8,000 of those places have already been filled. In addition, more than 90 other major employers have contracted to provide training places. They include firms such as Mercury Telecommunications. British Nuclear Fuels, Barratts and W. H. Smith. The number of employers who want to become involved with ET and to provide training places for the programme is growing all the time.

    341
    The criticisms of employment training levelled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West lack credibility since, from the beginning, he has done everything possible to damage the programme. He opposed it even before the ink was dry on the original report from the Manpower Services Commission, which was fully supported at that time by the TUC. The Labour party's record of opposition to employment training has been shabby and disreputable and it does not entitle them to sit in judgment on the programme.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West has been quick to condemn the decision to set up the training and enterprise councils. Contrary to everything he said and to everything that is happening outside the House, the response to my invitation to employers and others to come forward with proposals for setting up training and enterprise councils has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. They are potentially the biggest revolution in training ever in this country, because they represent a deliberate and major devolution of responsibility for training from Whitehall and the old industry level training organisations to local communities.
    The TECs will be different from the sort of training organisations that we have had before in three vital respects. First, they will be employer-led. The members of TECs will include people from many different organisations, but employers will be in the lead because they are the main customers for training and the main providers of it.
    Secondly, TECs will have executive responsibility: they will not be talking shops or advisory councils. They will be responsible for running large-scale programmes such as ET and YTS. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the focus of TECs will be firmly on the local labour market. It is at the local level that training needs are most effectively identified and that practical solutions to them can best be developed.
    Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested about applications, we await next week's announcement of which applications have been approved. The whole House will then see how foolish the hon. Gentleman's words were. I have already received 30 applications to set up training and enterprise councils from all over the country, and about 50 others are now in preparation. In a few days from now, I shall announce the names of the first 19 TECs to receive development funding. With the applications that I have already received and with those which will come forward in the next few months, I am confident that we shall be able to cover England and Wales with TECs during the next year or so.
    I believe that the councils represent the best hope of a lasting solution to the problem of skill shortages which has held back the growth of our economy time and again in the past 40 years. They are the key to ensuring that we have the skills that our industries and services will need in the 1990s and beyond.
    I have tried to describe the Government's record on training and to give the facts about it in this country. Enormous changes are taking place in the world of training and a huge amount of training is taking place. A great many individuals, firms and training organisations are committed to training people in the skills that our country needs. They are training young people, adults, unemployed people and people in jobs, and they want to be allowed to get on with that job. They know how crucial it is to our future and they cannot understand why the hon. Member for Oldham, West appears to be so determined to turn training into a political battleground.
    342
    The hon. Gentleman has a bad reputation in respect of almost every aspect of training and we must ask him what he thinks he is achieving. What does he think is the point of continually attacking a programme such as YTS, which is training 386,000 of our school leavers? What is the point of continually attacking a programme like employment training, which is training almost 200,000 long-term unemployed people? What is the point of attacking employers who are investing £18 billion a year in training their own employees? What is the point of attacking training and enterprise councils, which constitute one of the most hopeful signs in training for decades?
    It is time the Opposition acknowledged that the training efforts of employers' training organisations and trainees deserve the fullest possible support, because it is on their efforts and their success that the future of this country depends. We shall support them, and I ask the House to reject the ridiculous Opposition motion.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: I intend to be brief, because this is a short debate.
    It is shameful that a Minister responsible for training and employment should ask why our spokesman is not worried about the strikes. If that is the best he can do, he should chuck it in.
    I could take the Minister to parts of my constituency in which factories with a history of excellent industrial relations and increased productivity no longer exist because the bovver boys engaged in asset-stripping took them over and shut them down.
    I hope that the Minister will learn from the lessons of the past 10 years and from the abuses that have taken place. He will be burying his head in the sand if he thinks that there have been no abuses of MSC schemes and YTS. Trainees should be given a decent wage for the work that they do. Why should anyone go out in the morning and work hard at training which will benefit the country when he is paid less than he would get on the dole? Often, these people are married men and women with family responsibilities.
    I remember the late David Penhaligon saying in a debate that a farmer in his constituency went into the employment centre and asked, "When can I get my free boy?" That was the sort of attitude that people had to MSC schemes and the YTS. In my constituency, a garage employer took on five young boys, although he could not train them all properly. He told them that one out of the five would be kept on. The boys realised that one boy in particular stood out and they expected that at least he would be kept on. Instead, the employer sacked them all and started with another five. He simply used them as cheap labour. The boys told me this story and said that an alsatian dog was locked in the garage as a watchdog at night, and that every morning one of the boys had to start by clearing up the dog's dirt. I hope that the Minister does not regard that as trivial.
    There were problems even with the most responsible employers in workshops in my constituency. In one, where some boys were taken on as part of the employment training scheme, the supervisor was so insensitive as to ask them, "How does it feel to be a liability to the state?" That was a cheek, coming from someone working in an industry which has had many subsidies from the Government. There was a sign in a baker's shop in Glasgow, "YTS for

    343
    two years to train as a shop assistant." Ten years ago, a girl who went to work in a baker's shop as an assistant usually ended up as a manageress within two years.
    There were problems with MSC schemes which created businesses. Some of the people setting up such schemes were charlatans. With the blessing of the MSC and the Minister's officials, directors set up a community company and started employing their wives, their relatives, their aunties and their uncles. The employees in turn set up other community businesses, so that they could employ yet more relatives. Other hon. Members have had similar experiences in their constituencies. When I raised these matters with the MSC, it wanted to turn a blind eye. The only conclusion that I can draw is that such schemes enable Ministers to say that people have come off the dole. The exercise is not about training or bringing assets to the community, or about getting the economy into better shape. It is aimed at allowing a Minister to get off the hook when the Opposition bring pressure to bear on him in the House.
    I have another example. The Minister can check this up, as I will give him the name of the company. A scheme to train young people was being wound up because there was not enough training input, and some £13,000 was left in the kitty. Some of the trainers had the cheek to go to the trustees and say that they were being put on the dole and wanted the £13,000 to be split between them. That showed the nature of these so-called responsible people who had been put in charge of young trainees.
    The company that I have already mentioned, which employed all the relatives of its directors, was also wound up. That company had word processors, printers, photocopiers and all sorts of other equipment. When I asked whether the equipment could be used by the community, I was told that the law required that it be put up for auction, so auctioneers came in and took what little was left.
    I spoke to my branch of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union—the metalworkers branch—because I thought that many of its members in Glasgow would be unemployed. To my surprise, I was told by the full-time officer that only a few members were on the books as unemployed. I said, "That's great—is there a boom in industry?" He said, "No. What is happening is this. The industry is suffering because over the past 10 years we have not started any apprentices, so those who have a skill are in high demand, but every year the work force gets older and it will disappear out of the work system altogether if we do not do something about it."
    When the Minister considers proper apprenticeship schemes, will he also consider the adult apprenticeship schemes in countries such as New Zealand, Canada and the United States? Young people have told me that even though they are now married, they have never had a decent job. This is what happened to my father. During the depression, because he could not learn a trade, he became a labourer and would have stayed one all his life, had he not become a merchant seaman so as to get a decent living. As a young man he had no chance because he was involved in the great depression. Many people of that generation were bitter because they did not get that chance. We now have another generation like that, and they should be
    344
    entitled to apprenticeships. If they can find the craftsmen to take them on, there should be a Government subsidy to allow it.
    We have failed miserably, particularly in relation to women with grown-up families. We often talk about careers for women, but I suspect that we talk too much about the academics. I do not begrudge them getting jobs, but some women want semi-skilled jobs, such as ancillary nursing work. We talk about the family unit. Some women have stayed at home for 15 or 16 years of their marriage to make sure that there is a mother in the house when children come home, so that they have security at home and do not get into trouble. We are doing nothing to help such women to get back into industry, nursing or commerce. I hope that the Minister will examine that problem.
    5.37 pm
    Mr. Lewis Stevens: I agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) when he said at the start of his speech that the competitiveness that we shall need in the single market after 1992 will depend on how well trained people are. Thereafter, I agreed with virtually nothing that he said as he carried on the practice of running down training schemes. Such training is vital, but people say that it is no good, and that what the Government, the country and employers do for training is inadequate. That is far from the truth.
    The Opposition still scream about YTS. They have never quite got over the fact that when it was first introduced they said, as they said about ET, that it would be no good, that it would not work and that it would be of no use, but in fact it has been of use. It was noticeable that when it was extended for two years, the Opposition did not complain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be interested to know that in my local area a survey was done a few years ago by one of the Rotary clubs into what pupils about to leave secondary schools thought about YTS. The majority accepted that it presented a realistic opportunity to train in useful skills.
    We talk about employment training and YTS for those who are not employed. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, however, we should remember that 80 per cent. of those who will be part of the commercial and industrial world in the year 2000 are already in employment. Training must therefore be available to that critically important sector. Measures announced by my right hon. Friend in the past two years, particularly those involving TECs, will make training in particular skills possible.
    It will be impossible to provide the right training without unity among employers, educational institutions and work forces, along with local knowledge. No measures suggested by the Opposition have brought that about. The hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke of a national strategy, but given what we know of Labour's past ideas, such a strategy would almost certainly be a national straitjacket. Training would be controlled not by those who need it—employers and employees—but by a centralised notion of what is right for everyone everywhere, and we know that that does not work.
    Over the years, the idea has developed that training must be oriented towards what companies want. Someone may be being trained for what could generally be described as trade, but what the company training him wants may

    345
    not be directly translatable to another company—for instance, an engineering firm. One advantage of many training courses provided by both the private sector and training boards is that they are custom-made. Changes introduced by the Government have encouraged training boards to become self-supporting institutions. The engineering industry training board has said that it can and will provide what employers want, in the private sector or as an independent organisation. Surely that is what is most important—to make people want training.
    The Opposition have encouraged the idea that training is not necessarily useful. We heard a good deal of that in the days of union domination in manufacturing industry, when the suggestion that people should learn new skills and adapt to new circumstances was frequently resisted, as was the idea of change.
    Mr. David Clelland: Will the hon. Gentleman give examples? I am sure that my hon. Friends with experience of trade union matters would join me in challenging the hon. Gentleman to refute my claim that the best training has taken place in those industries in which unions are recognised and participate fully in training.
    Mr. Stevens: It is true that unions have been usefully involved in training, but in the 1960s any kind of change, including training, was often resented.
    The Government have tried to sell the various schemes to the public. Opposition spokesmen have criticised our efforts on television, but we must make people aware of the importance of training within the industries for which they work. People with reasonably well paid jobs in companies whose immediate prospects seem good will not necessarily welcome the idea of being sent on a training scheme, especially one lasting for several weeks. They will have to put in a lot of effort, and at the end they will not automatically receive a pay rise or promotion. If we are to become competitive in time for 1992 we must train people for all kinds of jobs. People must be encouraged to come forward, but they will certainly not be encouraged to do so if others run down the training that is available.
    Management training is also crucial, although it has been somewhat neglected in the past. Managers are very busy people in most organisations. Why should they train? They have a job to do where they are, and they may be doing it well. I was pleased to learn that Coventry polytechnic, which is near my constituency, recently set up a diploma in manufacturing management, along with the engineering industrial training board. The course is custom-made, and will have a direct return. Those who have taken part in the pilot scheme have been able to make successful contributions to the companies in which they have been training, even while still on the course.
    That, surely, is how training should be seen—as a process which can provide a direct and immediate return, rather than a remote business which may provide an academic qualification. Employers can be overwhelmed by pieces of paper telling them that an applicant has passed this, that or the other. Training must be practical, and it must have the potential to produce a useful contribution to the industry concerned as quickly as possible. That is what all the schemes provided by the Government over the past few years have attempted to achieve. We want to provide
    346
    recognised qualifications, but also to make those qualifications useful at an early stage—through the TECs, for instance.
    The productivity that is fundamental to wealth and competitiveness must come from all employees, and there must therefore be accountability at every level. Decisions about who should be trained and how that training should be carried out are therefore as important as any other aspect of commercial activity. The measures introduced by my right hon. Friend have begun to move the country in the right direction for the first time. We have a strategy —with Government help and encouragement, we want companies to provide the right training at the right time to meet 1992 and the years that follow. The Opposition have not offered that. They believe that they have a plan, but most of their motion constituted a whinge about YTS and employment training. One sentence suggested that they might have something to offer, but we have not heard about it yet.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Mike Watson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate as it concerns a subject that is of direct relevance to all too many of the constituents whose interests I have been sent here to represent. I do not know what world the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) inhabits, nor do I know much about Nuneaton, but he says that people must be prepared to come forward, say that they want training and outline the kind of training that they want. If he cares to accompany me on my next visit to Glasgow, Central, he will find that there is no shortage of people who are crying out for training and for jobs. They should not have to confront all the obstacles that he described that prevent them from getting that training. It is a subject to which I shall return, if I may, in due course.
    In making my maiden speech, I should like to say how saddened I was that the by-election responsible for my appearance in the House was occasioned by the tragic death of Bob McTaggart, a man who was not simply a good and trusted comrade; he was a personal friend. Never the sort of man to seek the limelight on his own behalf, Bob was an extremely popular and greatly respected Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Central, a reputation that was earned by his unstinting efforts on behalf of his constituents.
    Since my introduction to the House two weeks ago, I have been moved by the large number of hon. Members, from all sides, who have made it clear that they held Bob McTaggart in similar respect. In his maiden speech to the House in July 1980, Bob McTaggart said of his predecessor:
    "If I can serve the people of Glasgow, Central as well as he did, I shall be satisfied."—[Official Report, 10 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 799.]
    Today I can pay no greater respect to the memory of Bob McTaggart than to say unhesitatingly that I echo those words.
    To represent Glasgow, Central is a responsibility that I take on with considerable pride, aware as I am of the great traditions of the constituency, in its varying forms, throughout this century. Today it is genuinely the most multiracial, multi-religious and therefore multicultural of all Scottish constituencies, from the influx of the Irish—dating back some 150 years and continuing to this day—through the establishment of a considerable Jewish

    347
    presence around the turn of the century, to the large and vibrant Asian communities of today. The social and cultural mix of the constituency is one which I very much welcome, enriching as it does not just the constituency but the city of Glasgow as a whole.
    Although the manufacturing industry for which the city was once renowned is now almost non-existent within the constituency—it is, indeed, a sign of the times that the two largest employers within its boundaries are the National Health Service and Glasgow district council—none the less I am pleased to say that its political traditions have remained largely intact, for it was in 1906 that the constituency of Blackfriars returned George Barnes as the first ever Scottish Labour Member of Parliament. In 1922, as the chest of working-class Scotland swelled with pride at the return of 30 Labour Members of Parliament—names which are quite rightly revered to this day—two represented constituencies which now form part of Glasgow, Central: George Buchanan in Gorbals and, most notable of all, Jimmy Maxton in Bridgeton.
    The fact that the then Glasgow, Central constituency returned, on the same day, one Andrew Bonar Law, who just happened to be the Prime Minister, might also be worthy of some note, although my hon. Friends will doubtless thank me for not dwelling on that particular chapter of the constituency's heritage. A rich heritage, none the less, it remains—the heritage of the men who earned the accolade of the Red Clydesiders and who fought to relieve poverty and to improve the living conditions of the thousands who were condemned in those inter-war years—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said some moments ago—to lives of misery and hopelessness. There could be no more graphic illustration of the density of housing which existed at that time and the conditions that inevitably resulted from it than the fact that the area which today forms one constituency, the one which I represent, contained no fewer than four constituencies in 1922.
    From their analysis of the kind of society which produced such conditions, the Red Clydesiders argued passionately for a programme of Socialist reforms—notably the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, within the United Kingdom, which they believed was necessary to ensure that Scots had the ability to decide on matters which were, and are, of direct concern to them.
    These principles and aims have a resonance almost 70 years on because, sadly, the levels of unemployment faced and fought by the Red Clydesiders between the wars, and subsequently by their immediate successors such as John Rankin and James Carmichael in the post-war period—whose Socialism may have differed in style and emphasis, although not in intensity—find modern-day parallels which are all too familiar. The city of Glasgow is in many ways miles better, but it still suffers the blight of some of the worst levels of unemployment in Britain today.
    As an example, Glasgow, Central currently has the eighth highest unemployment level of any constituency, with an official unemployment rate of 20 per cent. That figure, of course, ignores the various attempts by the Government over the past 10 years to massage, and therefore to distort, the unemployment statistics. The real
    348
    figure in Glasgow, Central is nearly 30 per cent., but even on the basis of the official figure it still represents a major social problem for many of my constituents.
    The problem, however, is wider. The seven parliamentary constituencies which lie high or low, depending on one's perception of such things, in the unemployment league table, are all found—not unexpectedly—in major industrial cities. Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle each contribute one apiece, but, sadly, the remaining three are all Glasgow constituencies. Thus, the city holds the unenviable record of four of the eight highest unemployment levels in the constituencies represented in this House.
    That is the scale of the problem. Much of it, not least in Glasgow, Central, is, sadly, borne by young people under the age of 25. In five out of the six wards in the constituency, youth unemployment exceeds 28 per cent. In the Calton ward, it stands at the horrendous level of 45 per cent. I urge hon. Members on all sides of the House to consider that figure and its implications for a few moments.
    During the recent by-election campaign, I had occasion to quote that figure. It was challenged by no less a gentleman than the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). Ultimately, he was obliged to accept its accuracy, which, when one thinks about it, is not surprising, since the figure had been drawn from those supplied by his own Department and the Department of Employment. Yet, as if that was not bad enough, even that figure of 45 per cent. is an understatement of the problem, because in September 1988 the Government withdrew the payment of benefit from youngsters who were unemployed and did not have a YTS place. Since then, thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds have disappeared from the unemployment count.
    At that time, the Government guaranteed a YTS place to every young person. It has proved to be the empty promise that many on this side of the House recognised that inevitably it would be. The most recent statistics for the Southside and Bridgeton careers offices, covering the Glasgow, Central constituency, show that 476 16 and 17-year-olds registered for work, yet only 107 YTS places were available. That was a shortfall of 369 places, yet unless these youngsters can show what is euphemistically termed "severe hardship", they will receive no income support whatsoever.
    That is the scale of the problem in Glasgow, Central. It is a scandal, and I shall do everything I can, as the Member of Parliament for that constituency, to alleviate it. However, the scope for doing so is limited by a Government whose policies are now producing a school-leaving generation that is largely untrained and unskilled and that is increasingly even without homes and the economic means with which to build their lives. That is a tragic waste of human potential, quite apart from the fact that one of the most obvious methods of combating unemployment—one does not, surely, need to be a Socialist to appreciate it, although you are, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Socialist—is by training and retraining people, by matching skills to needs and by offering every young person what should surely be a basic right—the opportunity of education to the limit of his or her potential.
    However, the Government's response has been to cut public expenditure. Those cuts have greatly reduced young

    349
    people's chances of getting the education and training that they need. This is certainly not a recent phenomenon in respect of the present party which forms the Government.
    The following quotation will, I hope, serve to illustrate my point:
    "To ask … the Secretary for Scotland, if he will make arrangements for the continued education and training of unemployed boys and girls of 14 to 18 years of age, under the auspices of education authorities in conjunction with the juvenile advisory committees of the Labour Exchanges?"—[Official Report, 12 December 1922; Vol. 159, c. 2574.]
    Those words formed a question in this House on 12 December 1922 from James Maxton, then the Member of Parliament for the Bridgeton constituency. It is a matter of record that he failed to get a response to his question, although, typically, that did not deflect him from his course of vigorously pursuing that and many other matters on behalf of his constituents. Today's generation of young people in Bridgeton also want an answer on the provision of adequate education and training, as they do on so many other matters. In 1989, as in 1922, they will get no answer, at least not from the current Government, that will materially change the opportunities available to them for the better.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) so eloquently outlined when he opened the debate, our party does have answers for young people. We shall provide real training, without compulsion, for real jobs at real rates of pay. The day is now approaching when that will become reality.
    Many people walk with more than hope in their hearts following the unequivocal message delivered throughout the country to the Government on 15 June. Those results did not begin a trend: they confirmed a trend, and a momentum which will increase in pace until its culmination in the return of a Labour Government. That in turn will lead to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, which the Red Clydesiders demanded 60 years ago and the people of Glasgow, Central demanded three weeks ago. I eagerly take up the challenge of working with my right hon. and hon. Friends to turn that demand into reality.
    6 pm
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this brief debate on training and to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Mr. Watson) on his forthright and sincere maiden speech and on his clear and demonstrated interest in his constituents. I and all right hon. and hon. Members share his expressed feelings about the sad death of Robert McTaggart, the Member for Glasgow, Central for the past nine years. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that my maiden speech was in the month of July and was on training. I am therefore delighted that he has chosen that subject for his maiden speech, and it gives me great pleasure to congratulate him.
    Employment and training are linked. Good training must lead to better employment prospects for people of all ages. In the Norwich travel-to-work area, unemployment fell by 35 per cent. in the past year. Nationally, with the highest-ever number of people in work, with 2 million extra real jobs since 1983 and with 700,000 vacancies, the success of Government policy speaks for itself.
    Opposition Members certainly have a hard job if they are to convince the House and the country that they have the right answers on training. I well recall before the 1979
    350
    general election their limited and feeble efforts in youth training. I remember the youth opportunities programme. I remember hearing tale after tale of the nonsense that was happening, which would pale into insignificance any roll call that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) could produce. That feeble effort contrasts with the success and the expansion of the Conservative Government's youth training scheme. More than 23 million young people have benefited from that scheme; the Government are spending or investing £1 billion a year, and the number of young people with recognised qualifications is rising. That is all good news and is a tribute to the Government's efforts, particularly in youth training.
    The number of young people entering the labour market is declining. We have already heard about the 25 per cent. reduction in school leavers between 1988 and 1993. There are already vacancies in the youth training scheme. At the same time, the Government have to address the problem of skill shortages in every part of the country, including Norwich. Nationally, there are increasing difficulties in attracting qualified technicians. A recent survey shows that some 22 per cent. of firms expect skill shortages to limit their output in the 1990s. We have heard today about the importance of training and competitiveness in our approach to 1992 and beyond. According to the survey, there are also problems with the training of managers, professionals and craftsmen.
    I shall make particular reference to engineering, an interest that I hold very dear. In the Norfolk area there are only about 250 YTS trainees in engineering. Unlike Opposition Members, I regard employment training as an increasing success, but it is disappointing that in Norfolk, out of about 2,000 adults involved in the scheme, only five are engineers. Yet the talent and enthusiasm for engineering is there. We have successful school-industry links. Recently, I attended presentations by young engineers, and there is no question that there is enthusiasm for engineering and engineering training, if only we can make a better effort to move away from the present unsatisfactory position.
    It is time that right hon. and hon. Members and people throughout the country stopped talking about engineering having a bad image. We have to turn that around and talk about engineering, engineers and young engineers having an exciting future and a good image. That is closer to reality today and is one way in which we can improve young people's prospects and manufacturing industry.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that we are not training all the people we need. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that a modern training system must be employer-led, because employers are best placed to judge skill needs. It is clear from my own experience and observation that too much training in industry is still short-term, and too often no senior line managers involve themselves closely enough in training. The message shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House is that industry and business leaders must get their act together, spend more on training, put more enthusiasm into training and consider it a good long-term investment, because their record is not good enough. I understand that that view is shared generally throughout the country and is not simply put forward by one political party.
    Employers must not place too much reliance on state-run schemes. I have already mentioned the

    351
    undoubted success of the youth training scheme and employment training, in spite of the nonsense that we have heard this afternoon from Opposition Members. The new training and enterprise councils, which have been mentioned today, show the Government's faith in local employers helping to run the schemes and to raise the importance of training locally.
    The Government have produced two White Papers recently, one of which considers the future of the industrial training boards. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) about the need to raise the standard and quality of training to the level of our competitors overseas. That need has been made more urgent by the rapid approach of 1992. The engineering industry training board has already taken steps to meet that new challenge. I know that it is confident that the board can become self-supporting by the financial year 1991–92. According to the chairman, Mr. Astley Whittall;
    "the industry will no longer pay a compulsory levy, and therefore will be able to take us or leave us—I intend to make sure our products and services are so good that they will be queuing at the door".
    Returning to the role of employers, particularly those in Norwich, I recently chaired a meeting at Laurence Scott Electromotors in Norwich to launch a local initiative to overcome critical skills shortages and the problem of poaching between one firm with skills shortages and another. That problem has become worse in the past few months and years. Local newspapers in Norwich have described it as a "manpower time bomb." That problem must be addressed.
    The intention of the group in Norwich is to bring together employers to develop a common training strategy, to identify present and future skill needs and to increase the size of the pool of skilled people available in the area. It is hoped that the Government's new business growth training scheme, which I regard as an excellent initiative, will be involved in and used as part of that strategy.
    The inadequacy of our training arrangements is not a new problem. Over the years, unfavourable comparisons have been made with our continental competitors. The problem has been discussed for decades or even centuries. It is a continuing problem, which now has an increasingly European dimension. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State confirm that the Government have secured large amounts of money from the European social and regional funds to spend on training? If they have, that is good, because it has helped with certain youth training schemes, particularly in deprived areas. We must welcome any development in Europe that will improve training and access to it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say a little more about that aspect of training and co-operation.
    In the history of training—I am now thinking of the opening remarks of the hon. Member of Oldham, West —Labour Governments have failed miserably. According to the Labour party's glossy new policy document, it is bent on repeating old mistakes. Opposition divisions about employment training have already been effectively disposed of in this debate. The Labour party has done the unemployed a disservice by the way that it has set about attacking a particularly good scheme.
    352
    The Opposition's attitude to the youth training scheme has been equally negative. It is equally well known, so I do not need to set it out in detail.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend said that the Labour party had done a disservice to the unemployed. He may not have been aware of it, but he was echoing the words used by Mr. Bill Jordan of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who criticised the Labour party's attitude to employment training.
    Mr. Thompson: I welcome and agree with that intervention. If time permitted, I could quote many other Opposition politicians who are unhappy about the Labour party's training policy. I share the surprise expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it should have chosen this subject for debate.
    The Labour party's policy document proposes quangos, extra bureaucracy and more centralisation, not to mention subservience to the trade union movement, which exposes its policies as hollow and shallow.
    The Labour party's motion is wrong-headed, reactionary and positively prehistoric. I shall be delighted to support the Government's amendment, which shows the way forward for training to help our young people and people at all stages in their careers.
    6.13 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: I join the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) in expressing concern about training in the engineering industry. It is important that an adequate number of able people are attracted into the industry and that standards are maintained. I am sure that the Government will bear that in mind when considering the future of training in the industry following the ending of the statutory levy boards.
    I also join the hon. Member for Norwich, North in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on his maiden speech and the tribute that he paid his predecessor, Bob McTaggart, who was much liked and respected by hon. Members.
    I agree with the hon. Member of Glasgow, Central that one does not have to be a Socialist to tackle unemployment through training and retraining. One must, however, be a Socialist to follow in the tradition of the Red Clydesiders. If the voters of Glasgow, Central were looking for a worthy inheritor of that tradition, judging from the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central they have found one.
    I do not wish to take up too much time as other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall therefore try to confine my remarks to one or two points. No matter what the Secretary of State said, I am sure that the response to employment training has not lived up to Government expectations. It would have been more helpful if other Opposition parties and local authorities had tried to make the scheme works despite its warts. Nevertheless, it cannot be recognised as the best possible training scheme available for unemployed adults.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned the difficulties with employment training experienced by married women. The Minister of State will know that I have made representations to him about the problem in my constituency of the wives of men who spend much of the week at sea not qualifying for the child care allowance that has been made available to single-parent

    353
    families. That is unnecessary discrimination. It is all very well for the Minister to suggest creche facilities and the use of distance-learning materials, which I do not dispute might be worthy, but they are less than adequate compared with the proper support provided by the child care allowance. The cost involved is probably minimal compared with the benefit that it would offer, bearing in mind the changing shape of the labour market and the fact that more women will have to be attracted into work.
    We should be trying to improve the quality of training. Hon. Members have given examples of schemes operated in other countries. In Sweden, which has a high-quality training programme, redundancy is regarded not as a tragedy but as a challenge and an opportunity. Rather than spending £5,000 per annum per place, Sweden spends almost £13,000. People who have been trained and retrained in the latest techniques and shown how to use the most up-to-date technological skills become a valuable asset when they return to the labour market. Not only do we have the tragedy of unemployment, but we are failing to capitalise on what could be a good and useful resource for Britain.
    It is impossible to generalise about the youth training scheme. At the outset, it could have been argued that it was a makeshift method of removing young people from the unemployment statistics, but it cannot be denied that, in many places where efforts have been made to make the scheme work, it has done so. I suspect that its effectiveness is patchy, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central rightly said that the promise of places for all has not been fulfilled. Figures from Strathclyde regional council suggest that in May this year there was a shortage of almost 1,400 places.
    There has been misunderstanding or a lack of imagination from the centre about the scheme. Within a local authority area, a place may be available on a scheme, but the distance that has to be travelled to take it up may be vast indeed. Although in theory places are available for young people, often in practice they are not.
    The amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others, which has not been selected, highlights the need to place greater emphasis on the educational component of training. It is agreed among hon. Members and industry that there is a lack of some important skills. I urge the Government to take account of the fact that in an advanced industrial society there will be fewer jobs for 16-year-olds in the basic service industries. Job growth will occur in the professional, scientific and technological occupations, which will obviously require higher educational attainment. Only 32 per cent. of young people in Britain carry on full-time education to the age of 18 compared with 95 per cent. in Japan and 72 per cent. in the United States. We must encourage greater participation in full-time education.
    The importance of education must be recognised, which means that there must be a well-resourced education service, not an approach which puts teachers in the category of second-class citizens. We should think about compulsory day release schemes. I have been informed, although I have not checked, that the Education Act 1944 included provisions for part-time education and training for people up to the age of 18, to be implemented as soon as conditions permitted. It is now 45 years later and that must be done. I hope that the Government will seriously
    354
    consider providing for compulsory release from work for training, as many young people are not given any training at all.
    Over the years, there have been a series of training organisations and a plethora of initials and now we have the TECs, the training and enterprise councils. I welcome the idea that the private sector should take a greater interest and be more involved in training. Over the years, part of the difficulty has been caused by the lack of such interest and involvement. The Government admit in the White Paper "Scottish Enterprise":
    "Efforts to date to persuade the private sector to take greater interest in and responsibility for training have had disappointing results. Far too many firms take little interest in assessing and training for their own future needs, assuming that supply will always be there to meet demand."
    But the Government have gone wrong by putting all their eggs into one basket. As they admit, the private sector has not been at the forefront in meeting training needs.
    Will people of calibre be found in all parts of the country? In paragraph 5·1 of "Scottish Enterprise" the Government admit that the concept of locally led training
    "stands or falls on the willingness of people of calibre to respond to this exciting challenge."
    We are afraid that many people of calibre will be so busy running their own successful enterprises that they will not have the time to lead training initiatives. There may be a patchy response and delivery of first-class training throughout the country may not be guaranteed.
    It is regrettable that United Kingdom business spends only 0·15 per cent. of its turnover on training, compared with between 1 and 2 per cent. for most of our major industrial competitors. I ask the Government to consider the possibility of local authorities being more involved and to look towards a remittable training tax based on turnover. If a company showed through an auditor's certificate that it was genuinely spending money on training, that money could be remitted to it. I regret the element of compulsion, but only in that way can we guarantee that training is taken seriously.
    Training and retraining are important to tap the skills of the unemployed and to allow many of those who are employed to learn new skills and adapt to new technologies so that the United Kingdom is geared to the technological age.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. James Paice: Much has been said about the differences between this country and our major competitors, primarily in Europe. Those differences have been emphasised in terms of expenditure, but I suggest that expenditure is the secondary item and that the primary factor is the difference in attitudes. If attitudes towards training and the culture of training are right, expenditure and investment will surely follow.
    Over the years, the attitudes of employers and employees in this country have differed from the attitudes in the countries of our competitors. British employers have tended to see training as a cost rather than the investment that it is. To a certain extent, that has been spurred on by the City demanding short-term returns on investment rather than long-term returns.
    The attitudes of British employees have differed from the attitudes in Germany, Sweden and other western countries. There has been a tendency here to demand a high wage on leaving school, probably at the expense of training and almost certainly at the expense of

    355
    advancement in years to come. There has been a belief in once-for-all training in the first few years after leaving school, in the expectation that it will lead to a trade for life, but that approach has failed to recognise that advancing technology—to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred—means that people will have to change their jobs repeatedly because of the rapid pace of our economic growth.
    Trade unions have tried to protect jobs in outdated skills, without grasping the need for employees to change their skills, often several times in mid-life. That attitude is exemplified in the Opposition's motion. They have concentrated on the 16 to 19-year-olds and have not referred to training throughout the working life, the most critical part of all. How are we to change attitudes?
    The Labour party went into the last general election threatening a payroll tax of 1 per cent. to pay for training. That amount has now been reduced to 0·5 per cent., but we are left with the fundamental principle of Socialism, that the state can spend better than individual businesses. This is an extension of the levy system which the Labour party has espoused. If the levy system is so wonderful that the Labour party opposes the Government's proposal to remove statutory training boards, why are there skill shortages? Perhaps this policy is founded on the policy and philosophy of Mr. Scargill, who believes that the only reason Socialism has not worked is that we have not had enough of it, so the more levies we have, the more it will work.
    The levy system today, whatever function it has served in the past, is out of date and irrelevant to the needs of industry and the range of training that is required for the ever-increasing variety of businesses in Britain. The abolition of a number of training boards in the past few years has spawned many private training organisations, often co-operative ventures, with many employers joining to provide for their training needs. They can respond quickly, have a common feature in that they are much closer to the businesses for which they work and can meet their clients' needs as and when required.
    The investment picture has been changing rapidly. In 1984, research by the Manpower Services Commission showed that there had been an 11 per cent. increase in training activity by businesses over the preceding five years. We do not have an exact comparison in the succeeding five years, but the evidence is that that relatively low increase has been well surpassed.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I agree with my hon. Friend about statutory levies as they apply to most industries, but the construction industry is characterised by many small firms throughout Britain. Surely, without the construction industry training board, which would not survive without a statutory levy, those firms would not have the training and safety provisions that are so badly needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we keep some statutory levy for the construction industry?
    Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject: he has put his finger on the one exception. I accept that, contrary to my fundamental beliefs, activity in the construction industry is so different from activity in other industries that we must retain the levy.
    356
    According to the labour force survey, the number of employees receiving training has increased by nearly 1 million during the past five years. Much of the changing attitude we have already seen has come as a result of the youth training scheme. It has encouraged businesses to become involved in training. Many businesses that have never had anything to do with training before have taken on YTS trainees, for whatever reason, and from that, they have developed an involvement with and activity in training, which has spread throughout the business.
    I have a small criticism of the YTS, which is that the Manpower Services Commission did not act vigorously or ruthlessly enough on the approved training organisation status in weeding out those organisations that were not delivering the expected quality. However, the important point is that we have seen industry becoming more involved. That is the principle behind the training and enterprise councils, which I wholly support. They encourage industrial involvement and encourage business to ensure that the YTS and employment training programmes are delivered locally, based on local needs.
    It is necessary, of course, to retain a national framework of standards. The use of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications will be of great value in that. We must recognise that modern training techniques can substantially reduce training time; that is one reason why it is no use pining after the old apprenticeship scheme. Much of that was time serving. It is true that the apprentices learned skills, but modern training technology means that training schemes do not need to run for as many years as they did for the old apprenticeships.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Paice: No, because I know that another Labour Member wishes to speak in the debate.
    We must recognise that people still think of training identification and appraisal of a form of criticism of standards. They are not. It is interesting that, despite the furore a few years ago in the teaching profession about the suggestion of appraisal, the few authorities that carry out teacher appraisal have met a wonderful response from the teachers who have been through it. They now recognise that it is a constructive approach to human development, rather than a form of back-door criticism of what they are doing.
    If we are to move towards a greater emphasis on training from business, we must first ensure that business from the top understands its involvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) mentioned the need for management to become more involved. I remember that 10 years ago, when I was first appointed as training officer to my then company, we embarked on a programme of staff training. The first person who went on a training course was the managing director, and he was followed by the divisional managers. We went down the structure from there. The managers set the example to the rest of the staff that training should go right through the organisation.
    One aspect that still causes great concern is the poaching by one employer of another's employee in whose training the original employer has invested. We must consider ways to address that problem, because it is the one obstacle that discourages business from investing in

    357
    training. The answer is clear: we must look at property rights and consider whether employees could be asked to sign a contract of commitment of service.
    It is commonplace in the United States that employees undergoing a programme of training agree to a period of service as an employee of the company making that investment. That is not wholly unknown in this country. The armed services sponsor people through university and require a certain service afterwards. In football, we hear of massive sums being paid to buy off contracts made for a certain period of employment. There must be fallbacks, of course, so that people can extricate themselves from such contracts for valid reasons, but we must consider ways of dealing with the problem.
    There have been a few cases in this country in which people have tried to deal with the problem. In a major court case, Strathclyde regional council—which is not exactly a hotbed of macho Tory management—brought a case against Neil and the court decided that a contract specifying that training costs could be repaid if the employee resigned before completing a minimum period of service was enforceable. That sets the scene, and I wish that we could do far more. It may mean that we must do more to clarify the law in that respect.
    The Government have clearly set out a policy throughout the economy over the years of setting business free from Government involvement. That policy has demonstrated its success clearly in consistent massive growth rates and in reductions in unemployment. The evidence is that business is now rightly turning its attention to training. The Government's responsibility is to nurture, stimulate and encourage industry to claw back the lost ground, rather than to interpose themselves between industry and training and to damage what is already happening. We must recognise that the Government's role is to work behind the scenes, rather than to intervene.
    That is the fundamental difference between the policies, which I support, of the Conservative party and this Government, and the policies of the Labour party. Business should make decisions about training; it is not a matter for Government. The Government should supplement what business does, and not supplant it, as is proposed by the Opposition.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. John P. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on his superb maiden speech, which he delivered authoritatively. He replaces me as the newest Member of the House of Commons.
    There is one aspect of training that has not been covered adequately this afternoon, although it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). My concern is about the deplorable record of accidents, serious injuries and deaths which has increased dramatically during the reign of the present Government and the previous two. The House should recognise that there is an inextricable link between the quality of training and the industry's safety record. Training is the key not only to our economic future, but to ensuring that we can bring down the tragic incidence of death and destruction in industry, which is to the shame of the Government and which continues to be appalling, especially in the construction industry, to which the hon.
    358
    Member for Norfolk, North-West referred. We must tackle that problem and we can do so only through training.
    The Government have a lamentable record on training. I do not know how they can turn round now and draw attention to skills shortages and the so-called "revolution" in training to deal with them. The "revolution" is a continuation of the Government's 10-year-old free market philosophy, which is essentially for them to wash their hands of responsibility and to pass it on to local organisations dominated by employers. Yet employers themselves recognise that they need state assistance and state guidance, which employers enjoy in every other major competitor country, to provide first-class training. I received first-class training myself as a building craftsman two decades ago, but such training is now sadly lacking.
    In the past few years, I have had considerable direct experience of YTS training and have been involved with many thousands of YTS trainees. The quality of training for the majority of them is unacceptable. They simply gain work experience, and not training as such. The fact that our safety record is so bad shows the appalling level of training. Nowhere is that more noticeable and more significant than in the record of accidents among YTS trainees. That is a direct result of the absence of quality training. When the Labour party forms a Government, we will put an end to that. I ask the Minister to draw the attention of his colleagues to the close link between safety and training.
    I conclude by relating an appalling example that I encountered as a trainer in this area. A young YTS trainee set out in the winter month of November on a decorating job and began by painting the outside of a building with a highly inflammable substance by which he became covered during the course of his work. When it came to the morning tea-break at 10 o'clock, before going in to the cabin with all the others for his cup of tea and for something to eat, he stopped by the glowing brazier to warm himself. That move was fatal.
    The reason why youngsters die and are seriously injured and maimed in industry is that they are not given adequate training. If that boy had been trained properly, the accident would never have happened. It would never have happened to me, because of the training that I received.
    6.40 pm
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: This has been an interesting debate. With the possible exception of the Secretary of State, like us all being against sin, we are all very much in favour of training. However, that is where the similarity ends, because Conservative Members have risen only to say how much they are in favour of the Government's approach and of the private sector which, according to them, has achieved such miracles.
    Although that is what the Secretary of State told the House, the reality is that the right hon. Gentleman is at odds with the head of his own training agency. When Mr. Roger Dawe, the director general of the Training Agency, addressed a conference on the issue of training, he stated that at every level we were towards the bottom of the training league table, whether in education, youth training, higher level skills training or management. He then pointed out that on the evidence of the statistics on

    359
    training in this country, far from catching up with our competitors in western Europe, Japan and the United States, we are falling further and further behind.
    Indeed, a Government survey which has yet to be properly published—although its author has managed to get his results on the public record—shows that the level of training in this country is frightening in its lack of intensity. Only one third of private manufacturing companies actively train their employees; less than half the organisations in the private service sector train their employees; yet the much-derided public sector trains at least 60 per cent. of its workers. Incredible though it may seem, 14 per cent. of those who are officially designated as "apprentices" or "long-term trainees" receive no training whatsoever. I repeat that, under this Government's training programme, 14 per cent. of trainees receive no training.
    I could go on and on about this country's failure in training matters. Conservative Members have tried to say that the Government's present record compares favourably with that of the last Labour Government. However, let us look at the reality in industry—not back in 1979, but as recently as 1982, when skills shortages were reported as a major constraint on output by as few as 2·5 per cent. of our companies. The CBI recently reported that 20 per cent. of companies now experience severe skills shortages that are sufficiently bad as to prevent output developing, and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has reported that 49 per cent. of manufacturing companies now experience skills shortages.
    I welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, who spoke about the construction industry. At the moment the much-derided construction industry training board is training 30,000 people per year. However, the CITB recognises that it needs to raise that level considerably to 88,000 people a year. It is now predicted that at present rates there will be a shortfall of 1 million construction workers in the next 10 years. That deficit cannot be made up by the private sector, whether through the training and enterprise councils system or any other system. Because we have the CITB and the levy system, we have some chance, but not enough, to make up the skills shortages in that industry.
    As Conservative Members know, the Federation of Master Builders is hardly one of the Labour party's traditional supporters. The federation has made it clear that it considers that
    "there is nothing in … recent history … to warrant the view that the end of the statutory based CITB would lead to the creation of a voluntary training organisation which could yield better or more cost effective training."
    The Secretary of State must take that message on board. The right hon. Gentleman has told us about the TEC system—the ideological attempt to remove the Government from all responsibility for what goes on—but it is a blind move towards the so-called "market system". Indeed, the head of the Training Agency has referred to the present system of training as a "mixed pattern".
    The Opposition know that the private sector is failing the country. We know that the Secretary of State said that there are now over 25 million people in work, but when one looks at the real rate of investment in training, one sees that it is not the £18 billion that the Secretary of State has claimed: it is about £3—25 billion when wage costs and
    360
    income support are removed. That represents about £100 per year for every person at a place of work. That is a pathetic indictment of the Government, of what they have done in the past 10 years and of what they are doing now.
    The Secretary of State also said that the TEC system was popular with the private sector, but it is not. I refer him to the views of the Builders Merchants Federation —a small part of the private sector—which is deeply suspicious of the TEC system because it feels that it is being frozen out of that system and that its needs for national training are being ignored by the pursuit of long-distance remote-controlled training and by the Government's avoidance of responsibility.
    The Secretary of State recently attended a conference organised by the Institute of Personnel Management and the British Association of Commercial and Industrial Education. The head of the Training Agency was also present. Having been severely criticised for the inadequacies of the TEC system, the head of the Training Agency lamely remarked:
    "You are saying: don't trust the employers—don't trust TECs, please will the Government make it compulsory to train and make it compulsory for employers not to take anyone on until they are 18: that's a surprising message from an employer gathering."
    The Secretary of State must recognise that the employers are saying that the TEC system does not work; that it will not work and that it cannot provide the training. The private sector will fail us once again, as it has in the past—
    Mr. Tracey rose—
    Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way, because I do not have the time.
    I turn now to the employment training system, which the Secretary of State describes as a success. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not go on to say that 60 per cent. of those who are recommended to go on employment training refuse to do so. They refuse to have anything to do with employment training. The Secretary of State may deny that, but those are the Government's own figures. Those are the figures in an "in confidence" Department of Employment document that I am holding now. Indeed, those figures were given in confidence because the Secretary of State does not want them known by the public.
    Employment training is failing six out of 10 people and they are not prepared—[Interruption.] Well, I shall quote the figures to the Secretary of State. Referrals from the employment service to the Training Agency, cumulative to April this year, numbered 685,100. However, only 274,900 began as trainees. Therefore, less than 40 per cent. of those who were referred by the employment service made it on to an ET scheme, because those who realise what employment training is all about are simply rejecting it.
    I shall give the Secretary of State some other figures. The Building Manufacturers Federation, which is not untypical of many of the would-be providers of ET, established what is regarded as a high-quality employment training scheme. We could debate the merits of employment training at greater length if we had more time, but in this case the employers claimed that they had a high-quality scheme, yet they attracted only one trainee for the 400 places that were available. That federation has told me that there are two reasons why it has only one trainee. The first is the derisory pay available to trainees on

    361
    employment training schemes. The second reason is that even on this high-quality scheme, the lousy image of employment training across the nation is such that any self-respecting unemployed person does not want to know about it.
    In its magazine "Personnel Management", the Institute of Personnel Management has commented:
    "The problem, where there is one, is that ET was born of a curious compromise between training and make-work".
    That is the reality of employment training.
    I turn now to one particular scheme, to the disastrous failure of the Council for Social Aid in Greater Manchester, which affected my constituents. The scheme left debts of £1 million. I hope that the Minister will reply to my points later, but the House should know that that scheme was failing well before Christmas. In November of last year that scheme was falsifying names on one of its projects in Openshaw and I am led to believe that the Training Agency was aware of it. If the Minister was not aware of it, his departmental officials, through the Training Agency, were. The Minister has a direct responsibility for the fact that there were totally bogus names on the list of trainees. Even the numbers on ET are open to fiddle in that scheme and, I suggest, more generally.
    Representatives of the Training Agency were well aware in the early part of this year that in some parts of the CSA scheme in Manchester, there were no typewriter ribbons for people taking typing courses and there were no toilet rolls for the trainees or the staff. The Training Agency knew about that. Even if the Minister did not know about it, his staff and departmental officials were aware of it. At that level, he has responsibility for what happened.
    There was a cosy little conspiracy at quite a high level in the Training Agency—and perhaps in the Department —to cover up what was happening. The ET scheme was not allowed to fail at such an early stage, particularly when it was set up for 2,500 would-be trainees, but never achieved more than 1,000. The scheme failed because, trainees would not make themselves available. It failed because ET is grossly underfunded and it failed because although it was trying in some parts to provide decent quality training, the trainees did not want to know. The scheme failed and left debts of £1 million, of which £400,000 is owed to the Training Agency. There was a cosy little cover-up which amounts to a corrupt conspiracy to protect the Government's propaganda about ET. The scheme could have been rescued at an early stage in the interests of trainees and the staff. However, the Government were not prepared to allow it to fail at such an early stage.
    When the scheme failed and the Training Agency pulled the plug, the decision was not taken by the Training Agency: it was referred to Whitehall. The decision was taken in Whitehall because the Training Agency knew that it had something on its hands which was too big for it to take a decision on its own.
    The ET scheme is failing the nation. However much the Secretary of State huffs and puffs, ET is failing the nation and the unemployed. Like YTS, ET is failing our young people in many areas. The Government have no comprehensive view on training. Until they recognise that the private sector unaided will fail in training, until we have a tripartite relationship between Government, industry and the trade unions, we will not have the training
    362
    which will give a future to this country—the type of future which our people expect and should expect. Our people will get that future only when there is a change of Government.
    6.52 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): My first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on his maiden speech. Many hon. Members will share his sentiments about our late colleague Bob McTaggart, whose death saddened us all. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central made it clear that he takes on a great political heritage on Clydeside and he gave the House a clear sign that he will live up to that.
    I also congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central on choosing to make his maiden speech in this debate, because it has been an interesting debate on a very important subject. This country lives, in Europe arid in the rest of the world, by its skills, and that has long been so. However, the skills required to compete these days change very quickly. It is no longer enough for people to pick up skills on the way and for them to work out the best way to do things. Training is essential, and so is constant retraining. That much is common ground between the Government and the Opposition.
    Of course there are skills shortages; that fact reflects in part at least a vigorous and changing economy. However, it is also a challenge for us all. The Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said, are in the middle of a series of radical changes. I believe that YTS has been transformed, particularly since we extended it to two years. It has taken on more young people and has enabled the quality and usefulness of the training to be improved. At present, 386,000 young people are on YTS; historically, that is a very high figure. I can reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that we also have more than 141,000 YTS places available and we can bring more places forward if we need to do so. Sixty-three per cent. of those who complete YTS training now gain qualifications, and that percentage continues to rise. YTS is also very popular with most of the young people who participate in the scheme, and it has proved very valuable to trainees and employers. I believe that it is a vast improvement on previous schemes.
    The youth training scheme has introduced proper structured training into sectors where it hardly existed before and to youngsters who have had no training. We are committed to improving the scheme and to making it more flexible and relevant and to increasing the proportion of young people who obtain qualifications. We are working on that. YTS covers an enormously wide area of training. I am glad to be able to say that a YTS trainee plays football for England, and as from a few days ago —as some hon. Members will be particularly pleased to know—another YTS trainee now plays cricket for Yorkshire. I leave hon. Members to judge which is the more important sporting achievement.
    The new funding structure this year provides for greater flexibility and response to particular needs and for a larger proportion of the money to help young people with special needs and those with disabilities. That is very important. I welcome yesterday's CBI report on this general subject,

    363
    which reinforced the importance of training, particularly for young people. We will, of course, study that report very carefully.
    Much of the attention in this debate has been devoted to the Government's employment training programme.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Cope: I have only a few minutes left, so I will not give way.
    As far as we know, ET is the most ambitious and largest training programme for unemployed people in the world. It is a massive investment by Government in the future of unemployed people. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, nearly 200,000 people throughout the country now take advantage of ET, and that is a very definite vote of confidence by unemployed people in the programme. It is also the best start for any adult training programme ever launched. That figure of 200,000 is more than three times the number of people who joined the community programme over the same period.
    The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred to the so-called drop-out rate. He was really talking about the number of people who say that they are interested in ET compared with those who really start on the programme. That tells us something about unemployed people, as well as something about the way in which the programme is perceived. The employment training programme has received a far better response than any previous programme run by the Government. It is far better than the community programme, JTS and the job clubs. It is producing a better response from unemployed people. That is not surprising, because the programme offers a mix of practical and directed training to participants tailored to meet their individual needs.
    Some 18 per cent. of those who start the programme have an identified literacy and numeracy training need; that is one of the special needs which ET fulfils. Particular attention is paid to providing training to meet such needs and about 35,000 people currently receive literacy and numeracy training within ET in some form or another. Twelve per cent. of the new entrants to the programme have long-term health problems or disabilities, which represents a much higher proportion than for any previous adult training programme. Eleven per cent. of people on the employment training programme are from the ethnic minorities and are a significantly higher proportion than for the community programme and higher than the share of ethnic origin groups in total unemployment.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the numbers of women in employment. Nearly 30 per cent. of all new employment training entrants are women. Again, that is in line with the proportion of unemployed women. The programme is also making a significant impact on inner cities and we are building on that at the moment. It is helping older workers. About 8,500 trainees aged over 50 have benefited from the programme, and nearly half of them were unemployed for more than two years.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about the training and enterprise councils. I will not re-emphasise their importance.
    364
    The Government have increased their spending on training from approximately £450 million a year in 1979 to over £3,000 million this year. Part of that—bout £300 million—comes from the European social fund. Our Government's spending on training as a proportion of GDP is now higher than that in France, Germany, America or Japan, but it is much less than employers spend, including the Government as an employer. About £18,000 million was spent by employers in 1986–87, and the amount has undoubtedly gone up since then. Of course, that includes wages; they are a legitimate part of the cost of training.
    I have quoted those figures to show the absurdity of the Opposition's idea, which they did not spell out today, that the way to solve the training problem is to impose on employers a special tax of about £1,000 million. Opposition Members believe that that will somehow make a colossal difference. That is an absurd claim, and nobody can take it seriously.
    It is extremely significant that neither the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) nor his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stretford made any but passing references to the Labour party's proposals in its recent document. They not only provide for that new tax but, to a great degree, propose to hand back control to unions. Some union leaders have proved to be strong supporters of training, including employment training and so on, but, at every turn, many others have opposed employment training and YTS. We have seen that in our Department and outside. In general, their record would not give us confidence that that is the right way to proceed.
    Training is vital for the country and the individuals within it. It would be wrong to take responsibility for training from those who provide the jobs and use the skills. It is right to share the responsibility with training and enterprise councils, which can and will build on the training efforts of employers and others involved, to the great benefit of Britain. I urge the House to support the amendment.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 275.

    Division No. 280]

    [7.02 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Caborn, Richard

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Alton, David

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Anderson, Donald

    Canavan, Dennis

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cartwright, John

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Clay, Bob

    Barron, Kevin

    Clelland, David

    Battle, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cohen, Harry

    Beith, A. J.

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Corbett, Robin

    Blair, Tony

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Blunkett, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Boateng, Paul

    Crowther, Stan

    Bradley, Keith

    Cryer, Bob

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Darling, Alistair

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

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

    Buckley, George J.

    Dewar, Donald

    365

    Dixon, Don

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dobson, Frank

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Doran, Frank

    Martlew, Eric

    Douglas, Dick

    Maxton, John

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Meacher, Michael

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Meale, Alan

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Michael, Alun

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

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Flannery, Martin

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Flynn, Paul

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Foster, Derek

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Foulkes, George

    Morley, Elliott

    Fraser, John

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Galloway, George

    Mullin, Chris

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Murphy, Paul

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Nellist, Dave

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Gordon, Mildred

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Gould, Bryan

    Pike, Peter L.

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Prescott, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Grocott, Bruce

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Radice, Giles

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Randall, Stuart

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Henderson, Doug

    Richardson, Jo

    Hinchliffe, David

    Robertson, George

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Rowlands, Ted

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Howells, Geraint

    Sheerman, Barry

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hoyle, Doug

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Ingram, Adam

    Snape, Peter

    Janner, Greville

    Soley, Clive

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Stott, Roger

    Kennedy, Charles

    Straw, Jack

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lamond, James

    Turner, Dennis

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Vaz, Keith

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Wall, Pat

    Lewis, Terry

    Wallace, James

    Livsey, Richard

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    McAllion, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    McCartney, Ian

    Wilson, Brian

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Winnick, David

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    McKelvey, William

    Worthington, Tony

    McLeish, Henry

    Wray, Jimmy

    Maclennan, Robert

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    McWilliam, John

    Madden, Max

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Marek, Dr John

    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Ashby, David

    Allason, Rupert

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Amess, David

    Baldry, Tony

    366

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bellingham, Henry

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gregory, Conal

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Grist, Ian

    Boswell, Tim

    Grylls, Michael

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hague, William

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Bowis, John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Brazier, Julian

    Hanley, Jeremy

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

    Hannam, John

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

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

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Harris, David

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Burt, Alistair

    Hayes, Jerry

    Butcher, John

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Butler, Chris

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Butterfill, John

    Heddle, John

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Cash, William

    Hind, Kenneth

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Holt, Richard

    Chapman, Sydney

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

    Chope, Christopher

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Churchill, Mr

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Colvin, Michael

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Conway, Derek

    Irvine, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Irving, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jack, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Jackson, Robert

    Cormack, Patrick

    Janman, Tim

    Cran, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Critchley, Julian

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Curry, David

    Key, Robert

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

    Kilfedder, James

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Day, Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Devlin, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Dover, Den

    Knowles, Michael

    Durant, Tony

    Knox, David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lang, Ian

    Eggar, Tim

    Latham, Michael

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Evennett, David

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Fallon, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Favell, Tony

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lightbown, David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lilley, Peter

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Forth, Eric

    McCrindle, Robert

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Franks, Cecil

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Freeman, Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Fry, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gardiner, George

    Malins, Humfrey

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mans, Keith

    Gill, Christopher

    Maples, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Marlow, Tony

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Maude, Hon Francis

    367

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Speller, Tony

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Squire, Robin

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mills, Iain

    Steen, Anthony

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stern, Michael

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stokes, Sir John

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Sumberg, David

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Summerson, Hugo

    Mudd, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Neubert, Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Norris, Steve

    Thurnham, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Paice, James

    Tracey, Richard

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tredinnick, David

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Trotter, Neville

    Pawsey, James

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Portillo, Michael

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Price, Sir David

    Walden, George

    Raffan, Keith

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Redwood, John

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Renton, Tim

    Ward, John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Riddick, Graham

    Wells, Bowen

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wheeler, John

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Whitney, Ray

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Wilshire, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Rost, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wood, Timothy

    Ryder, Richard

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Yeo, Tim

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Mr. David Maclean and

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    that this House noting that Employment Training is the largest and fastest growing training programme for adults ever mounted in this country, and noting the success of YTS in equipping young people for jobs or further education, and the record scale of public resources devoted to training, welcomes the Government's achievements in improving the quantity and quality of training in Britain and the major further steps it now proposes to take to meet the training needs of the 1990's.

Immigration and DNA Testing
7.14 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's continued determination to operate laws which are racially discriminatory, as evidenced by their newly amended and consolidated immigration rules and the statement on their attitude towards DNA testing in immigration cases; and condemns the creation and perpetuation of second class citizenship which is the inevitable consequence of such laws.
The motion provides an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their opinions on any aspect of immigration policy. I know that that is the intention of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I propose to concentrate almost exclusively on one aspect of immigration policy, which is the Government's proposals for the use of DNA testing as a means of establishing parentage.
I choose that one aspect of policy on which to concentrate in this essentially time-limited debate, because it is a new and major aspect of policy, and the proposals for dealing with that new situation, as set out by the Government, will undoubtedly cause hardship and distress to many British families.
Mr. Tim Devlin: [Interruption.] I am a little confused as to why the right hon. Gentleman did not raise this matter, which obviously is dear to his heart, in the immigration rules debate on 20 June or at Question Time on 11 May or on 15 June. Why has he been absent so many times and not raised the matter before?
Mr. Hattersley: I am afraid that there was so much discontent at what appears to have been a wholly irrelevant intervention that I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. If he wants to raise that irrelevancy again, I shall listen to him and try to answer him.
Mr. Devlin: I was wondering why the right hon. Gentleman did not raise those points on a number of occasions in the last few weeks, such as on 11 May, 15 June or 20 June, when he was here but said nothing. If the Opposition are going to raise these matters in debate, they should have raised them at other times, too.
Mr. Hattersley: I am glad that I gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make his point, because it enables me to say what I was not going to say, but is worth saying. Most of these matters were discussed in the House at 12.30 am during the week before last. I conveyed my personal view to the Home Secretary in a conversation behind the Chair that the introduction of the new rules, our prayers against them, and his introduction of DNA testing were not suitable subjects to be debated in the middle of the night. I also conveyed to the Home Secretary my view that, had the Prime Minister either sufficient courtesy or sufficient courage, she would have answered my letter and justified the policy on DNA testing. Although I wrote to her three months ago, I have not yet received a reply. It is for such reasons that the Opposition took the proper decision, and this entirely legitimate chance, to debate this matter in our time. If the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) would like me to expand on that theme, I would be happy to do so. [Interruption.]

369
As the hon. Member for Stockton, South would not, I shall say why I want to deal almost exclusively with one aspect of immigration policy. I repeat that the policy proposals on DNA testing, as set out by the Government, will cause hardship and distress to many British families. I want to emphasise that. The men and women who are asking and have asked for the entry of their sons and daughters into this country are British citizens. They are as British as any hon. Member. We are talking not about our attitude towards alien people, but our attitude towards British citizens. They may happen to be Moslems, or brown or black, or have been born outside Britain or be the children of men and women born outside Britain, but they are British citizens. It is citizens in that category against whom the Government are operating.
The new proposals were set out by the Home Secretary in a written answer rather than in a proper statement to the House and, if I can command the attention of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, that is another reason for this debate today. Those crucial proposals affecting civil liberties were not given in a proper announcement to the House, but by way of an arranged written answer to one of the Home Secretary's cronies on the Conservative Back Benches.
My second reason for concentrating on DNA testing is to illustrate the truth behind the Government immigration policies. When DNA testing is examined, all the talk of matching firmness with fairness is revealed as simple humbug. The Government's immigration policy is not based on any set of consistent and defensible principles. It is not based on any effective criteria against which legitimate rights can be measured.
Too often we describe visitors as immigrants when they are no such thing. Too often they are treated as immigrants who want to settle here when all they want to do is to spend a few weeks with their family and friends. The Government's policy towards those visitors and to immigrants is based on the simple principle of keeping the numbers down to an absolute minimum—at least, keeping numbers down to an absolute minium when those visitors come from Africa, the Caribbean or the Indian sub-continent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I hear Conservative Members below the Gangway saying, "Hear, hear".
There was a time in the House when even the Tory party would have been ashamed to espouse such attitudes openly. Perhaps the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to disown such opinion. He may want to take this opportunity to disown some of the speeches made in that late night debate.
Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman started his speech, as he normally does, on the basis that the Government are wrong in trying to keep numbers to a minimum. Is he totally convinced that every visitor who comes here is a genuine visitor and that every visitor returns to his home once the time during which he is allowed to remain here has expired?
Mr. Hattersley: Of course I could not be convinced that every visitor is genuine and that every visitor returns to his homeland. What I know as a certainty—it will be confirmed by my hon. Friends who face this problem day by day—is that hundreds of genuine visitors who want to come here for a brief period and who are genuine and honest in their offers to return home at the end of their
370
alloted span are not allowed to come into this country. That is especially true if they come from the Indian sub-continent.
Mr. Denis Howell: Would my right hon. Friend care to contemplate that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) supported the right to citizenship of Zola Budd? She came here and jumped every queue. She gave an undertaking to remain here permanently, but she has now returned to South Africa. She remains a British citizen and, as far as I can judge from the latest Government proposals, she will be entitled to vote at the next general election.
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, my right hon. Friend has highlighted the double standards that are constantly displayed on the Conservative Benches.
The canard about the bogus visitor is easy to express in the House and it is easy for it to be taken up by our worst newspapers. In the past 25 years I have dealt with thousands of visitors who have come to this country for a brief period, before and after the visa system was introduced. In that time I do not believe that the Home Office, the immigration department or the police have had to deal with more than 25 overstayers. If I am in error I trust that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State will prove me wrong by quoting from their records. Most of my experience relates to visitors from the Indian sub-continent and from Pakistan and often those visitors come here for a specific purpose, be it a family party, a wedding or a religious festival. They have every intention of returning home and do so. It does Conservative Members below the Gangway no credit to hiss about overstayers when they cannot provide any proof. They do so because they find it racially satisfactory to continue the rumour.
Mr. John Carlisle: What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have to prove that such overstaying does not take place? How does he know that all visitors are genuine? Under what system can he absolutely guarantee that such visitors return to their homes?
Mr. Hattersley: What sort of question is that? How do I know that the hon. Gentleman does not cheat on his tax returns? The only way that I know that is because I rely on the authority of Government and on the agencies of Government to abide by the law. How do I know that the hon. Gentleman did not burgle a neighbour on the way here this morning? The only way I know that is because I believe that the Home Office and the agencies of the law operate properly. I know about the integrity of my constituents in exactly the same way as I know about the hon. Gentleman's integrity and, frankly, I would gamble on them with rather more certainty.
Before the hon. Member for Luton, North made his unsubstantiated allegations I said that there was a time in this House when the sort of stuff that we heard a moment ago would have been disowned by a series of Home Secretaries who genuinely believed in a racially equal society. Today the big difference is not in the attitude of the Home Secretary, but in the attitude of the Prime Minister, who colours, dominates and determines such matters.
Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked in the House to justify the new DNA rules. She did not even attempt to justify their objectivity, justice or fairness. She did not even

371
give the sort of apologia that we shall hear from the Home Secretary shortly. The Prime Minister simply said that the reason why we have the new DNA rules was that she was not prepared to allow any more immigrants into the country. That is, of course, unless they can buy their way in at £150,000 a time. That is one of the principles of fairness and firmness applied to immigration by the Government.
Mr. Tim Janman: The right hon. Gentleman has denounced the Prime Minister and Government policy. He says that it is wrong to allow people to buy their way in. India is another country which operates such a system and its high commission told me: "The Indian Government decides each application on its own merits and the applicant's financial position or sponsorship would probably be taken into account." There are plenty of countries across the world that, intelligently, operate a qualitative sieve of the immigrants that they allow in.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman may hold the view that if the Indian Government do it, it is bound to be right, but that is not a principle to which I subscribe. The idea that, because the Indians do it, we should do it as well is a new dictum in British parliamentary democracy. The Indians are wrong in that particular, just as we are.
It is important to consider the effect of the DNA rules and what they show us about our immigration system. The new DNA rules will deny entry—it is not a matter of dispute or doubt—to men and women who applied to come here as children, believing that they had a legal right to do so, but whose legal right was denied. We now know from DNA testing that some applicants—the numbers are uncertain—who had the legal right were denied entry on the wrong evidence as examined by an immigration officer and subsequently by an adjudicator and possibly a tribunal. Under the new DNA rules, although a child had the legitimate right to enter this country and although his right was proved beyond any doubt or disagreement subsequent to it being denied initially, there will be no redress for the wrong done. The Government will not make up in any way for their initial error.
I find it indefensible that children who were prevented from joining their parents in this country by what was at best a mistake and who have undoubtedly been done a grave injustice should not have that wrong righted. It is worth repeating that they would be allowed in if they possessed £150,000. Notwithstanding that, I am sure that, as I predicted during an intervention, the Home Secretary will tell us of his determination to be fair in the application of immigration policy. He will not be surprised that we do not believe him. I hope that he will consider the evidence suggesting the unfairness demonstrated by the new DNA rules.
The new DNA rules also highlight a complaint which the Opposition have made during the past 10 years. Men and women who are entitled to enter this country, even under the present oppressive rules, are often kept out because of the harsh way in which these rules are implemented. The best that can be said about the implementation of the rules, the way in which they are used at ports of entry and the frequent attitude of officers towards them, is that the Government are so anxious to
372
keep one illegal immigrant out of Britain that they exclude a dozen legitimate applicants just to make sure. That is certainly the result of the primary purpose rule, which divides many genuine families by denying husbands the right to enter this country because they cannot answer the negative question.
Those husbands cannot demonstrate beyond any doubt and dubiety that marriage is their only reason for entering this country. I know from my own experience that there are thousands of women in this country who entered into an honourable, honest and lasting marriage who have been denied the support which a Government who talk about the family should provide by allowing their husbands to enter the country.
I saw that, in his egregious way, the Minister, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) shook his head when I criticised the primary purpose rule. All hon. Members know that, if we had said two years ago that many children had been denied entry into this country even though they were related to their parents as they claimed, he would have reacted in just the same way. He would have said that there was no evidence to support that claim, that every genuine child was allowed in, and that every son and daughter whose father and mother were genuinely and properly resident here were allowed in. The Government have been proved wrong over that, and I have no doubt that they are equally wrong in the way that they apply the primary purpose rule and separate legitimate husbands and wives who are party to an honest and honourable marriage.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the DNA rules is that the Government cannot be trusted to apply policies on ministerial discretion. When I met the Home Secretary and others to discuss this subject last week, he said that he believed that the best possible protection for the DNA-proven son or daughter whose relationship was once denied, but which had now been incontrovertibly proved, was to allow the Home Secretary discretion to use the compassion which we must trust him to possess. I do not accept that, because I do not believe that the Home Secretary will act with objectivity and compassion, or do anything when presented with individual cases other than use all his power to prevent the individual who has previously been excluded from entering this country.
I shall tell him the reasons for my judgment about his future conduct. I have seen, as have many hon. Members, the Home Office's official working document which constitutes the beginnings of the rules which officers of the Department are to use and apply. It talks about the compassionate entry of, for example, the young man of 20 who should have been allowed in three years ago when he was 17, was told that he was not the son of his father and has subsequently been proved to be the son of his father. When deciding whether he should be allowed into this country, even though he is above the age of 18, the immigration services have been instructed to implement the following rule outlined in the Government-produced document:
"It will be crucial to hold this line to ensure the concession remains the exception rather than the rule."
The discretion based on the compassionate agreement that a man or woman should enter is to be calculated by the arithmetic of immigration. What happens if a majority of the cases involving men and women who should have been let in years ago, were turned down but have now proved the legitimacy of their application, come to him

373
and say, "My father in Britain is frail and needs attention," or, "My mother in Britain is sick and on her own," or, "I am ill and need the help of my parents now living in Britain"? According to his own rules, if a majority of cases are like that, the Secretary of State will say, "Don't worry me about compassion. My rule is that it is crucial to hold the line to ensure that concession remains the exception rather than the norm." To tell us that the rules will be implemented with fairness as well as firmness makes a mockery of the English language and does nothing for the Home Secretary's reputation.
The DNA issue illustrates another point which I have already mentioned: the fallibility of the present procedures for determining the legitimacy of an immigrant's claim that he or she has the right to entry. We have always known that applications for entry which are legitimate under the present rules are turned down at the point of entry. We have always known that the examination of appeals by adjudicators was no guarantee of justice. We have known of those two points because the attitude of port officials when examining an application is unavoidably influenced by the climate created by the Government who employ them. If the officials think that the Home Secretary expects them to be tough or if, having read what is said in the House of Commons, they think that the Home Secretary has neither the inclination nor the courage to repudiate some of the statements made by Conservative Back Benchers, those officials will believe it their duty to use the rules to keep people out rather than let them in.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The right hon. Gentleman talked about arithmetic a few moments ago, and referred to the Prime Minister's reply the other day and an immigration level of 40,000 or 50,000. If the Labour party was in government and had repealed the legislation as it says it would, what would the level of immigration be then? Would it not be three or four times as high?
Mr. Hattersley: I urge the hon. Gentleman to focus on the important point, which is to let in people who deserve to be let in and not those who do not so deserve. For example, I think that under the next Labour Government, more husbands will be allowed in and fewer men and women will be allowed to buy their way in at £150,000 a time. One rule cancels out another. Does the Home Secretary agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) if he is saying that we should establish a number and not worry about the merits or care whether those seeking entry are genuine husbands or dependent relatives? That is one sort of immigration policy, but until the Prime Minister gave her answer on Tuesday it was a policy which not even this Government had said they operated.
The Government at least pretend that they do not add up the numbers, but let people in according to the individual merits of the case. It so happens that the Prime Minister blew the gaff last Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman may be pleased about that. Frankly, I am ashamed to be a citizen of a country in which the Prime Minister holds such standards.
The DNA tests demonstrate that the Government and their agencies made mistakes, partly because of the pressure placed on individuals by the Government's attitude and partly because of the adjudicators. The more
374
I read of adjudicators' determinations on immigration cases, the more worried I become, not about immigration, but about adjudicators' standards and forensic abilities. Having made the mistakes, partly because of the atmosphere created, the Government—in the judgment of every reasonable man and woman—have an obligation to provide some redress to those men and women who were wrongly excluded two or three years ago and who should now be allowed in. It is shameful of the Home Secretary to defend keeping out men and women who should once have been allowed in—we can demonstrate that—by inventing retrospectively a new rule about the entry of sons and daughters.
When I saw the Home Secretary last week he told me that the rule governing the entry of sons and daughters was always related to their dependency status. That rule has never been written down anywhere in the immigration regulations and I had never heard it expressed until the Home Secretary invented it to defend what he is doing. Until the DNA testing procedure showed that sons and daughters who should have been allowed in were not, the fact of being a son or daughter of a British citizen and under the qualifying age of 18 automatically meant that a person had a right to enter. Such people had the automatic right when they were turned down, so it is wholly unacceptable in a civilised society that the Home Secretary should say that they may have been dependent at the time of refusal but that they are not now, so the Home Office does not intend to make up for the mistake that it made, thereby compensating them for their legitimate grievance.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I want to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If someone has been excluded—wrongly, as it now seems—but has established a family in his own country, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he should be allowed to settle permanently in Britain with his family, despite having made a life for himself abroad?
Mr. Hattersley: I am. I make no apology for doing so. Governments should be responsible for their mistakes. The hon. and learned Gentleman is hoping to raise the spectre of what is called "paving" in certain circles—that of a man getting in and then bringing his wife and three children—a spectre that some Conservative Members are pleased to welcome. Most of the people who applied to come here did so because they wanted to maintain their links with families in the United Kingdom. Many of them wanted to help elderly parents in their declining years and all whom we have discussed this evening had a legitimate right to enter. The Government cannot deny a person a right which is his in law and then say that, having denied him that right three years ago, they have no obligation to make up for it. The Government are not entitled to say that they may have taken money off a person wrongly but that they do not have to pay it back because that person is well off now.
The Government have made mistakes and they should make up for them now. I have no doubt that if they had made such a mistake in respect of any community other than the Asian community in this country they would have redressed it by themselves. They believe that Asians in general and Bangladeshis in particular can be tyrannised, but they would not do that to anyone else—
Ms. Clare Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this reveals the hypocrisy of

375
the Government in relation to the Helsinki Final Act—the right to family unity applies to some families, but, it appears, not to Asians?
Another example of the Government's double standards is this: before DNA testing became available, someone who was over 18 and who later proved that he had been wrongly refused entry was allowed entry provided that he had not formed his own family. The Government are now going back on that because DNA testing would prove that so many wrong decisions had been taken. So even the Government's former practice is being torn up—they are going backwards.
Mr. Hattersley: I share my hon. Friend's contempt for this continual deterioration of standards in the immigration laws of this country. To put it as kindly as I can, year after year the Government have tightened them up in a way that is intended to exclude rather than to examine on merit.
Of course there must be strict controls and a major policy of immigration which prevents a large number of people who want to enter the country from doing so, but the controls must be based on honest and objective rules which can be defended openly and which are not changed as we go along when the Government see an opportunity to turn the screw tighter and to prevent people from entering who have honourable and legitimate—and previously lawful—reasons for doing so.
I have spoken for rather longer than I intended, largely because of interventions, and I want to give other hon. Members a chance to express their position. I conclude by telling the Home Secretary what we believe should happen.
All men and women who were unlawfully excluded as a result of Government inadequacy, mistakes or incompetence should be allowed into the country now. The idea of allowing the Home Secretary to judge which of them may or may not be allowed in does not seem tolerable, as we have seen the Home Office make such judgments before.
Another issue is that of what should be done about DNA in the future. I shall outline to the Home Secretary what we believe the procedure should be, not all of which divides us from him but some of which differs crucially from the proposals that he has been kind enough to reveal to the House in written answers and from the proposals that we know of from the leaked Home Office memorandum.
First, a man or woman applying for entry to this country as a son or daughter of a British citizen should be offered two alternative methods of proving that relationship. Such people should be allowed what I will call the traditional procedures—arguing on the evidence, supported by interview, that they are related as claimed. I hope that, if nothing else, I have made it clear today that we should like that procedure to be a good deal more objective, exact and dispassionate.
Secondly, such people should be allowed the DNA route of proof as an alternative. Applicants should be allowed to choose which route to follow, and there should be no inference that following one route is a confession of failure. To be precise, no one should think, let alone write down, that if a person was really a man's son he would have taken the DNA test. Both routes should be regarded as legitimate.
376
Such people should also have the right to switch from the traditional method of interview and evidence to DNA while the procedures are under way, if they want to and if, more importantly, they discover that they can afford to. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear in public —I am grateful to him for having made it clear to me in private last week—that if an applicant follows the DNA route and the DNA evidence is conclusive according to the scientists who do the test, that in itself will automatically be enough to ensure the entry of the person who has taken the test.
However, taking the DNA test is, as the Home Secretary knows only too well, only the beginning of the problem. DNA testing can cost, experience suggests, anything from £350 to £600. The figures at either end of that scale are beyond the pockets of many of the applicants who would most need the test. I do not understand the logic or the justice of a system which gives a person the right in law to bring in a son or daughter but prevents him from exercising that right because he cannot afford the proof. That is the very negation of a liberal and free society. It is essential that men and women who cannot afford the necessary proof to establish their legitimate claim be helped to provide the proof by the state, just as other legal systems are subsidised by the state so that other forms of juctice can be obtained by the poor and disadvantaged.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would also be very helpful if people were allowed to have blood tests taken at clinics in rural areas, since otherwise the expense and difficulty of travelling long distances is another disincentive?
Mr. Hattersley: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I go further. I know that one of the great disincentives to immigrants coming here from the Indian sub-continent is that, having turned up in Karachi after travelling overland for a day and a half to have an interview, six months later they get a letter saying that the interview was not conclusive and they have to travel overland again for a day and a half and have another interview. The entire system of examining immigration applications is based on the theory that if we can make it difficult for them to get in, we do so. The day has to come when we end that overt, conscious and deliberate disincentive.
I conclude by saying what it is essential should be said about the cost of DNA testing. It will be intolerable if individual applicants are required to pay their own fees, for that will simply mean that only the rich and never the poor will have conclusive DNA tests. It will be equally intolerable if the cost of this comparatively expensive test is borne by every other applicant to enter this country. That is clearly the Government's intention. In the memorandum that many of us have seen, one paragraph says that the Home Secretary, or perhaps the luckless Foreign Secretary, should make a separate announcement about the cost of the scheme shortly before the scheme comes into effect, to avoid a rush of applications aimed at beating the associated increase in settlement fees.
That can mean only one thing—that the cost of DNA testing is to be spread across every visitor who wants to come here, every husband who wants to join his wife, or every dependent relative. A second conclusion can be drawn, since the Home Secretary said that he has not yet

377
made up his mind how the fees are to be levied, but I am not sure how I could express that conclusion and remain within the rules of order.
What ought to happen is that, as with the whole business of legal aid, which is intended to help poor families to obtain justice, the cost of DNA testing should be a legitimate charge on the state. If it is not, the net result will be a perpetuation of the scandal that caused this debate. Young men and women who are entitled to be in this country with their parents will be denied the right to enter and live here, because they will not be able to afford the DNA test. That is an abomination and I should be more than grateful, I should be delighted, on behalf of my constitents if I heard from the Home Secretary that not even this Government are prepared to go that far.
7.52 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'commends the Government's determination to operate an immigration policy which is both firm and fair, as evidenced by their new amended and consolidated immigration rules; and welcomes the Government's announcement on the use of DNA testing in immigration cases.'.
Although the motion tabled by the Labour party goes wide, quite legitimately, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) confined himself to a narrow illustration of it. I shall range rather more widely, although I shall come to the point that he made. I shall deal also with the general background, and say a word about students, who are involved in the immigration rules changes covered by the motion, and about refugees, as Turkish Kurds are also covered by the immigration rules.
I shall begin by talking about the background, and what I have to say I have for some time hoped to have an opportunity to say in the House. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and I cross swords on several matters and I have come to the conclusion, rather reluctantly, that this is the one on which we probably differ most strongly. As the right hon. Gentleman said tonight, he regards our policy as arbitrary and prejudiced. I regard the Labour party policy on these matters as being composed of one part idealism and nine parts opportunism and muddle, the most charitable analysis being that the Labour party has not thought it through.
During the 1950s, 1960s and the 1970s, large numbers of people arrived here for settlement and in the early part of that period, there was no let or hindrance to that under the law as it stood. The first immigration restrictions were imposed in 1962 and they were substantially strengthened in 1971. Both those measures were strenuously opposed by the Labour party in opposition, but both were enforced and strengthened by it when in power. Whatever the rhetoric of Opposition, the facts, when they have to be faced, are obstinate but clear. This massive change set—and to some extent continues to set—substantial problems, particularly in our cities. The dangers of resentment and prejudice, which lead to blindness and inhumanity, were and still are very great. I defy any Labour Member who represents a city area to deny the truth of that.
Successive Governments of both parties have had to deal with those dangers and there is no difference between us on that. We believe as strongly as any in working
378
strenuously against discrimination and for equality of opportunity, to encourage members of the minorities—many of whom, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are British citizens—to live in peace and harmony in our cities and to climb, without hindrance or discouragement, all the professional ladders that exist in a free and varied society. I yield to no hon. Member in my desire to see that happen. For example, I am glad that, although the figures are still low, since 1976, when there were 182 members of the ethnic minorities in the police forces of England and Wales, that figure has increased to 1,209. It is still too low, but it is a sign of the progress that we have been making and that we are encouraging.
Mr. Keith Vaz: I am fascinated by the Home Secretary's history lesson. I was one of the immigrants who came to this country, on 15 August 1965. The right hon. Gentleman can hear this from me. What causes most fear and resentment in inner-city areas is, first, inflammatory speeches made by politicians such as the one made in 1968 by Enoch Powell. The second cause is speeches such as those made by the Home Secretary and his colleagues recently in Bradford and Birmingham, in which they lectured the immigrant community about being law-abiding citizens. The third cause is the Government's immigration policy, which denies people the right to family unity.
Mr. Hurd: I shall refer to that 1968 speech, the importance of which I acknowledge. However, the hon. Gentleman is an example of the process about which I was talking. I was not going to refer to him because I do not want to be patronising, but I welcome the day, which will not be long delayed, when the Conservative party also has members of the ethnic minorities as duly elected Members of Parliament. That is part of the process about which I am talking, and it is to be encouraged.
A condition of that progress and of the effort for equality of opportunity, however, is firm and fair immigration control. If it were felt by the majority that that control was severely weakened, I promise Labour Members that the patient work that we all do would be undermined and would fail. That is not a hypothesis—it very nearly happened in 1968. I do not wish to go into the merits or circumstances of that speech or of what happened to the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians, but remember that period vividly. I was working for my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I remember going to the west midlands with him. I came to the conclusion then, and I hold to it now, that if we are to work seriously for harmony, non-discrimination and equality of opportunity in our cities, that had to be accompanied by firm and fair immigration control.
Of course there should be understanding in individual cases. Of course there should be compassion—I do not shy away from that word. I hope that Opposition Members will say in public what they often say in private—that those qualities are evident in the way in which individual cases are handled by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his officials. There are arguments about the outcome, but let no one say in public that those cases receive no human understanding.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister of State, whom the Home Secretary has just mentioned, refused to stop the deportation of a young man whom he had given

379
a discretionary right to stay. The young man had been left in Pakistan at the age of 14. Eventually, when he reached the age of 21, it was admitted that he could come to this country, and that has been proved conclusively since. When the Minister refuses to stop such deportations, however, attitudes in the community are hardened. The Government's racist approach forges a new feeling.
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Lady could substantiate her claim that my hon. Friend deals with individual cases in a racist way, or that there is a lack of understanding of such cases. She does her own cause no justice by making such observations.
So far, I have dealt with the general principle. I have to do that because it is so often neglected, although in my view it is fundamental to bringing about peace and harmony in our cities.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the Home Secretary leaves the general principle, may I ask whether he recognises that his stated objectives of firmness and fairness cannot be achieved if the criteria that inform the Government's policy are those spelt out by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, when she spoke of her unwillingness to allow any more people in? How could that possibly constitute a criterion of fairness?
Mr. Hurd: I have read Tuesday's Hansard. My right hon. Friend talked about annual incoming numbers of 40,000 to 50,000 and said that, in her view, that was enough. What she said was hardly a detailed statement of immigration policy.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not object to our setting up a DNA scheme. Before we get deeper into controversial waters, let me confirm that for some months now we have accepted the outcome of such a test as a conclusive answer.
Ms. Short: So it should—it provides absolute proof of legal entitlement.
Mr. Hurd: I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the answer that he wanted. The hon. Lady must not spoil the party.
There are two conditions for the admission of relatives under the law and the rules. One is relationship, and the other is dependence. Since 1977, 30,000 people applying to come here as dependants from the sub-continent have been refused on relationship grounds, the entry clearance office concluding that they were not relatives as they had claimed. Of those 30,000, 8,000 were lodging a claim for citizenship. That is a separate argument. If they sustained those claims, the question of relationship would not arise and the claims would be agreed.
A further 14,000 are still under 18 and, if the DNA test established the truth of their claims to relationship, they would be allowed in. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook glossed over that point. He gave the impression that we were excluding children who had now been found to have relatives here, although he did not actually say as much. Let me take the opportunity to deny that. The 14,000 who are still under 18 and who were rejected because their claims to relationship were not believed would be admitted if a DNA test established that their claims were correct, because both conditions would have been fulfilled.
Mr. Hattersley: If I gave the impression that the Government would deny children under 18 who had been turned down before the DNA test was established the chance to exercise their rights by means of that test, I concede at once that I was wrong, although I do not think that I gave such an impression. While we are in this ecumenical mood, however, will the Home Secretary confirm that a child under 18 who had been turned down because no proof had been provided in the traditional way would not, if he or she obtained a DNA certificate proving the relationship, be required to return to what is in many cases an over-long procedure? Would that child obtain a certificate there and then, or would he or she have to wait for years?
Mr. Hurd: I gather that the Foreign Office is considering the procedure. [Interruption.] I am trying to give an accurate answer off the cuff, but my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to spell it out.
Of the 30,000 applicants whom I have mentioned, 8,000 may or may not turn out to have relatives. If they reapplied, the answer might depend on the result of a DNA test. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures—I do not think that it makes sense to assume that those 8,000 should be admitted whatever their present circumstances, and whether or not they are in the position described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Although the law provides the assumption that someone under 18 is dependent, it does not provide the same assumption in regard to anyone over that age. If those applicants were admitted regardless, one of the conditions laid down by Parliament would no longer be fulfilled.
Mr. Vaz: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: No; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
I will repeat the conclusion that we have reached in case it is not clear. Some of those 8,000 may apply for a DNA test, and may prove a relationship previously denied, but they are now over 18. We propose to proceed on a case-by-case basis. If the applicant has settled into independent adult life, we see no reason to go beyond the existing provisions of the immigration rules. If, however, he is still dependent on his sponsor in the United Kingdom, and if there are compassionate circumstances, we shall be ready to use our discretion as sympathetically and flexibly as possible. It is a difficult decision to make, but I believe that that is a fair and reasonable way of approaching it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who rose first, but then I mean to get on.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Leaving aside the question of manifest injustice, may I ask whether any Conservative Members have children over 18? Would they be prepared to say that those children should be compulsorily and permanently separated from their families in this way?
Mr. Hurd: When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook brought a delegation to see me, one of his colleagues produced the case, which was not argued out in detail, of an elderly lady from Bangladesh living, I believe, in Tower Hamlets in the east end of London. She was frail

381
and receiving income support, but it was said that she had, I believe, three sons who had successively had their relationship to her denied but who were doing well in Bangladesh and would be able to sustain their mother and keep her off income support. It was argued that, for the sake of family unification, it would be sensible to admit the three sons. It strikes me, however, that it would be common sense for that frail old lady to go back to Bangladesh where her sons would be able to maintain her. In such circumstances, I would not accept the argument about family unification put forward by the hon. Member for Preston.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, I intend to move on now.
I shall deal briefly with a point that is included in the rules to which hon. Members are objecting because it is an important test of attitudes. I refer to the student question. The vast majority of overseas students are genuine students and they are welcomed as such, but some people who enter this country as students are bogus students who do not come here to study. They come overwhelmingly from countries with similar regimes to our own. It is important not to stop people coming here as students, but we should say to them, "If you want to come here as a student, you should say so from the beginning—you should not come here as a visitor and then slide into being a student." I regard that as a test of attitudes. It is reasonable that the rules to which the Opposition object should include such a provision.
Mr. Hattersley: Does the Home Secretary believe that that rule should be applied to all students or that it should apply just to students of a particular ethnic origin?
Mr. Hurd: I regard it as reasonable where the mischief has arisen. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wishes to remain blind to the facts he can do so, but if he wishes to study the evidence of abuse, where it exists, and the proportion of it to be found in those countries where visas are required for entry to this country, we can provide him with it.
I turn to a matter about which we are constantly criticised and which may be dealt with by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) because it is very close to his heart. I refer to the treatment of refugees, with particular reference to that part of the immigration laws which deals with the Turkish Kurds. The United Nations 1951 convention defines the test of asylum, the granting of refugee status, as
"owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion or nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."
That definition is about 38 years old and it was devised for different circumstances, but it holds up very well. The United Nations draftsmen drafted the definition well and the text is still valid in changed circumstances. Those changed circumstances are very much on my mind as well as on the mind of every Minister who has to deal with these matters.
Large parts of the Third world and of eastern Europe are in ferment of one kind or another, and many people are suffering as a result of disorder or poverty. That puts a responsibility on us, as a substantial power and as a member of the international community, to do what we can to help. For the first time, however—this is the change
382
which has come about—many people who live in those troubled areas have just enough information and just enough money to move to European countries, including this one. That has led to the new phenomenon of middle men. We saw it with the Tamils a few years ago, and we are beginning to see it again with the arrival of the Turkish Kurds. Middle men go to such people and gull them into parting with part of their savings in order to come here or to other European countries. They promise that it is all fixed—that when the people arrive they will get a job and a house and that it will be easy.
In the face of that change, which may continue for a long time, the question that should be argued through in the press and also in this House is whether we should stick to the 1951 convention and the definition that I quoted, or whether we should enlarge it and say that people unfortunate enough to live in countries less peaceful and prosperous than our own should for that reason be admitted. The 1951 convention provides—and we honour it—that every request for asylum should be individually examined. I believe that it is right to stick to the 1951 convention. Again, I believe that it is right to be flexible in individual cases and to make use of the right that I have to grant exceptional leave to remain in this country.
I should like to make the point—it would be interesting to have the Opposition's view on this—that if everyone who asked for asylum were to be admitted, as some press criticism comes very close to urging, the loophole in immigration control would be so wide as to amount to a drastic weakening of our immigration laws. [Interruption.] I have read a good deal of comment in the last few weeks which comes very close to advocating such a policy. [Interruption.] I have read consistent advice to the effect that we should be very much more lax, that we should move beyond the 1951 convention and its definition, which I have quoted, and be much more sympathetic to admitting people who come here not because of any well-founded fear of persecution but because they come from a disorderly or poverty-stricken part of the world. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would deny that.
Mr. Hattersley: Until his last little flourish, the Home Secretary was wisely redefining his original assertion out of existence. As he wishes to pursue the case, I ask him in terms who has suggested that a person should have the right to enter this country simply because a man or woman designates himself as a refugee, and who has suggested that poverty should be one of the criteria for refugee status?
Mr. Hurd: There is a raft of press cuttings suggesting that in the context of—[Interruption.] I am not saying and I have never said that the right hon. Gentleman has advocated that at any time, but I am trying to coax him into a little strictness of expression about these matters, which I believe to be necessary.
Between May and the time when the visa regime came into effect on 22 June, 3,700 Turks asked for asylum in this country, 140 of whom went back without waiting for examination because they found that the conditions here were not as they had expected them to be. That is not a characteristic of a genuine refugee. So far, 171 have been interviewed, 15 of whom have been granted asylum, while 49 have been granted exceptional leave to remain and 23 have been refused asylum and removed. More than 77 are still in this country and our initial view is that they are not

383
genuine refugees. I give those figures to show the scrupulous nature of the individual examination of such cases. All those who asked for asylum have been or are being individually examined.
Ms. Short: Those figures are interesting, but that is the first group of people who actually got in. Some of them have been found to be genuine refugees, and they have been treated accordingly. But has not the Home Secretary now changed the procedure with the result that absolutely genuine refugees can no longer get in? That is our complaint.
Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Lady, but if she wishes to develop the point, the Minister of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) —will deal with it later. However, I do not believe that that is the case.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern about the same point which has been expressed on behalf of asylum seekers who have gone through the appeals procedure and have then been sent back to their country of origin. A case involving four Tamils is currently being sponsored by Amnesty International, and that case is being dealt with. Will my right hon. Friend consider that point carefully? Without fully exhausting the appeals system, we may be returning to their country of origin people who could be regarded as being in moral and political danger in that country. There is clear evidence in a few cases that people have been persecuted on their return to their own country.
Mr. Hurd: I do not accept that point. I hesitate to say anything more because the matter is still before the courts, but I do not accept that we acted improperly in any way or in a way that was contrary to our obligations.
It is perfectly understandable that people should have expressed concern about the fact that some of the Turkish asylum applicants were being—and some still are—held in prison. I share the concern about that. At the peak, some 200 were being held in prison. Now there are 59 people being held in prison and 100 more in the accommodation provided for detained immigrants. The examination of their claims is being given priority. The alternative is to let into this country people who have no particular links here, and there is no particular reason to think that we would ever see them again if we did. That is a difficult choice for officers to make in individual cases. I very much hope that we can bring that episode to an end quickly now that the visa regime is in place.
Mr. Janman: I applaud the measures that the Government are introducing with regard to immigration from Turkey, but how will my right hon. Friend deal with the situation in future if Turkey's membership of the European Community is successful?
Mr. Hurd: Without trespassing on the territory of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, I can say that that problem is a little way off.
I will give the House the latest general figures on refugees. Last year, we received 5,100 applications for asylum and 3,700 decisions were taken. A quarter of those applying were accepted and 55 per cent. were given exceptional leave to remain. That shows the hon. Member
384
for Ladywood the pattern. The rate of applications this year is about double that for last year. By the end of June, we had received about 5,000 applications.
Returning to the basic problem which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook set and which was illustrated by the interventions in my speech, it is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), to say that he is in favour of immigration control, but that everything has to be considered on merit. We have to proceed by way of rules. Since I have had to study their attitudes, the right hon. Gentleman, his predecessor, and the Labour party have said loudly, particularly during elections—the right hon. Gentleman has also done so today—that they are strongly in favour of immigration control. Then, every time a decision comes up, every time a loophole identifies itself, and whenever any single category comes under discussion, they say that the Government should give way and that admission should be permitted.
That is not a possible way to proceed. It is possible to say that the numbers should be greatly increased and that the categories should be greatly relaxed, but it is not intellectually coherent or respectable for the Opposition to say that they are strongly in favour of immigration control and that they accept that harmony in our cities depends upon it, but that in every individual case they will have nothing to do with enforcing the rules.
I understand the short-term calculation which has led to those attitudes case by case. Control is bound to be unpopular with those who are disappointed by individual decisions. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I come up against that time and again. We are bound to disappoint people in particular categories. The people of all races in our cities who benefit from strict control are hardly aware of that benefit, but such is life.
Administering control is a thankless task. I do not share the sneers and snide remarks that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook devoted to those who have to administer the controls. I readily admit that I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State are fair game, but it was grossly unfair to speak in that way of the immigration officers. They do a thankless job but it is a necessary task. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants the National Front to triumph in his constituency. The National Front had no candidates at all in the last election. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see in Britain the changes in public opinion which sent six German MEPs representing anti-foreigner far Right parties to the European Parliament, and a similar number from France. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants that, but his attitude towards immigration control would bring that about if it were realised. It would cause suspicion and resentment, and plenty of people are ready to leap on that bandwagon.
My hon. Friend and I will continue to apply a strict but fair system of control, not because we are prejudiced or inhumane, but because we believe that control is needed if all the people who live in our cities are to live together in tolerance and decent harmony.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It will be evident to the House that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that we can have very brief speeches.
8.24 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The Home Secretary's speech ranged very widely and it is tempting to follow him, but because I am aware of the brevity of the debate, which has been supplied by the Opposition out of their own time, I shall pursue the matter of most immediate concern to myself, and probably to most right hon. and hon. Members in the House this evening—DNA tests and the so-called over-age reapplicant. Those are people who originally applied for entry certificates when they were children, who were refused because the entry clearance officers were not convinced by the evidence of their relationship to their parents, who have subsequently been vindicated by DNA tests and who are still to be denied entry certificates on the ground that they are now 18 and not dependants. I believe that a grave injustice has been done to them and their families, and instead of being remedied, that injustice will be perpetuated by Government policy.
Before I deal with that major theme, I want to discuss two important but lesser matters relating to the written answer given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 14 June and to remarks made by the Minister of State in the Adjournment debate on 21 June.
My first question concerns the scheme to be introduced later this year for organising DNA testing on a regular basis. In his written answer on 14 June the Home Secretary refers to
"the implementation of a Government scheme later this year in relation to first-time settlement applicants".
Why does it apply only to first-time settlement applicants? Certainly DNA tests will be a valuable and conclusive proof of relationships when claims made on behalf of first-time applicants are in dispute. But the Home Secretary surely knows of the heartache and grievances felt not by first-time applicants, but by those who may have applied several times before, who have exhausted at least once the whole protracted appeals procedure and who have still been turned down. Why should they be excluded from the presumably faster and cheaper DNA testing scheme that the Government are to introduce? I hope that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State when he replies to the debate will answer that question.
My second question refers to the cost of DNA testing. The cost is heavy. My information is that a man and his wife with a family of three children will face a bill of some £2,000 for DNA testing. In his written answer the Home Secretary appeared to recognise that, when he said that it was necessary
"to strike a balance between not imposing too great a burden either on the individual applicant or on the taxpayer".—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 463—64.]
That clearly suggests a scheme in which there would be a contribution from public funds as well as a fee charged to applicants.
However, in the Adjournment debate of 21 June, the Minister of State said:
"We made it clear from the outset that any DNA scheme will not be funded out of taxpayers' money. Our policy is that the cost of the entry clearance process should be met by the applicants themselves rather than by the taxpayer."
386
On the face of it, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State seemed to be saying different things, but the Minister of State continued:
"We recognise, of course, that the tests are expensive, particularly where several members of the same family are applying."—[Official Report, 21 June 1989; Vol. 155 c. 472.]
Can we get this clear? Is it the Government's intention that a small family will have to meet the whole cost of the DNA test whereas a large family will be assisted by the taxpayers' contribution to the DNA bill? I hope that the Minister of State will clear that up when he replies to the debate. Better still, I hope that he will agree that all the cost should be borne by the taxpayer. Most applicants come from poor families, and it is wrong that children who have a right to join their families should be denied the opportunity of a DNA test simply because their parents cannot afford it.
Ms. Short: DNA testing appears expensive, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware how expensive existing procedures are. Our staff in the sub-continent are kept at much expense and provided with housing, so there are potential savings in using DNA. It is a cheek for the Government to say that people must pay for DNA tests when it is likely that they will lead to the Government saving money. Instead, the Government will extract more money from poor people for exercising their legal rights.
Mr. Shore: Savings may be made, but we are not in a position to say definitely. It is intolerable if people who are entitled to a DNA test, in the firm belief that it will provide the necessary evidence to join their parents and obtain an entry certificate, are unable to do so simply because they do not have the money. We surely cannot justify such a position. The analogy by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with legal aid for poor people who cannot afford our system of justice is surely applicable in this case.
Mr. Lawrence: Is not the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it is iniquitous that people who cannot afford to come here under their own steam should not be subsidised by having their fares paid by the British taxpayer? Is that not the same argument?
Mr. Shore: I do not think that it is; that would carry the issue to a point that I would not accept. The argument about separating children from their parents because they do not have the money to provide the necessary proof cannot be accepted by any sensible and civilised person who holds the values that should be predominant in our public life.
My main concern is about an applicant being refused entry as a child whose relationship is proved by a DNA test but is over 18 when the new evidence comes to light. Clearly, in such a case a great injustice has been done. I know of many cases in my constituency where the husband has been separated for years from his wife and children because documentary evidence has been judged inadequate. I also know of cases where one member of the family has been separated from his parents and brothers and sisters because, while they have been given entry certificates and come to the United Kingdom, he or she has been denied entry on the ground that in his or her case the evidence is unsatisfactory.
I have no doubt that in most cases those who grant or refuse entry certificates, the adjudicators and the other bodies to which those who are refused entry appeal, are

387
careful and conscientious in their work, but apart from human fallibility we all know that Bangladesh in particular and the Indian sub-continent in general are societies that are under-documented for the purposes of immigration control. The question is what should be done to remedy that injustice, even though the injustice was unwittingly committed.
Mr. Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No, I will not; I must finish.
In his written answer on 14 June, the Home Secretary said, and he restated it this evening:
"In many cases over-age applicants are likely to have settled into independent adult life and may also have married and established a family of their own overseas and I do not propose to waive the requirements of the rules in these cases." —[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 464.]
Those cases, of course, will include many people who were wrongly refused entry clearance when they first applied. This is a harsh and unfeeling decision. When an injustice has been committed, and when that injustice has been proved by the results of DNA testing, the onus is on the Government to remedy their mistakes and to redress grievances.
I did not understand from the figures given by the Home Secretary how many people will be involved. Perhaps the Minister of State can give a clearer statement about the number of people over the age of 18 who will be eligible. But numbers are irrelevant to the issue of proven injustice. That injustice should be removed, and it can be removed only by giving the entry certificate that was previously refused or by offering a substantial sum in compensation for the hardship caused to the individual concerned and his family.
When considering that question, Home Office Ministers appear to have omitted two immensely important considerations. The first is the strength of links of families from Bangladesh and the Indian sub-continent. Our family structure in Britain is becoming increasingly atomised, with the physical separation of parents from children once they reach adult years and each adult child establishing his separate residence. Families of the sub-continent are very different. Different generations live together; adult members of the same family, even when married, often live with their brothers and sisters and parents or remain in close proximity to them. It is not enough, therefore, to say that once the child has ceased to be financially dependent on his parents it does not matter if they are compelled to live thousands of miles apart for the rest of their lives. It matters enormously. The second factor that should not be overlooked is the adverse affect on the ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom and on our progress towards the fairer system that we all want.
I conclude what was meant to be a brief intervention by saying to the Home Secretary that I seriously hope that he will reconsider DNA testing, but not in the aggrieved spirit that he showed in his speech tonight. I hope that he will have the humanity and courage to come back to the House with a revised decision.
8.36 pm
Sir John Stokes: You have asked hon. Members to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be.
388
The right hon Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was rather churlish, as he often is. Being his near neighbour in the area, and having known the people whom he represents for some time, I found it astonishing that he did not once mention his countrymen.
Mr. Hattersley: We will only begin to make progress on this subject when people such as the hon. Gentleman realise that the Moslems in my constituency are my countrymen. That is the crucial division between Conservative and Labour Members.
Sir John Stokes: I shall not comment on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), but it was good to hear him speaking again. We all know what an English patriot he is and we remember his stance on the Falklands war. We only wish that we could hear his views on Europe given from the Front Bench.
It is extraordinary that the Opposition have again tabled such a motion. Anyone listening to speeches by Opposition Members would imagine that we are being unduly restrictive in our rules of entry. If one were to go outside this place and ask someone in the street, "Is that true?" they would say, "No, over the past 25 years this country has been extraordinarily generous in letting many people into this country, some of whom have done very well, and how glad we are about it." We have allowed many people into this densely populated island, with all the pressures that that caused, and about 40,000 or 50,000 people are still allowed to come here every year. Surely common sense says that there must be strict immigration controls, in the interests not only of the indigenous population but of immigrants.
We must control immigration, as it says in the rules, so that visiting students do not overstay and illegal immigration is curbed as far as possible. We must control the plea of marriage to support entry into this country because of the danger of it being used for bogus reasons. We must be careful not to let in people who claim to be refugees but are not really so. In a notorious case some time ago, some clerics made fools of themselves over a man who was not a refugee and went back to his country.
The Opposition do not appear to have a clear policy, except to say, "Let them all come in." They are saying the same thing about the millions of Hong Kong Chinese.
Ms. Short: We are not.
Sir John Stokes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on making this change to the rules which will be of benefit to everyone in this country. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will let me say a few words. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) said on 20 June.
"Good though the changes arc, they are too late."— [Official Report, 20 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 293.]
In the past 25 years, we have allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants into this small island so that we now have ethnic minorities of several million people and in some cases, as we all know, their birth rate far exceeds that of the indigenous population. This is primarily a problem for England, as the other countries in the United Kingdom have much smaller immigrant populations.
Why are we English Members of Parliament here today? I ask that question of the Opposition, too. Are we not the trustees of this beloved England for posterity?

389
What is the future of our country to be in another 25 years, even if all immigration is stopped tomorrow? What will be the effect on our religion, morals, customs, habits and so on? Already there have been some dangerous eruptions from parts of the Moslem community. Having served with the Moslems during the war, may I say that I greatly admire many of them and their religion. I also very much like the letter which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office wrote to Moslem leaders and which was published in the newspapers today. It is foolish to ignore the problems and the fears that those dangerous eruptions engender among the ordinary people whom we are supposed to represent.
We must not allow our feelings of guilt over our treatment of immigrants to cloud our judgment. We in England are a gentle, kind, tolerant and peace-loving people. We have already absorbed large numbers of newcomers. Except occasionally, there have not been the riots and bloodshed that some people prophesied. The burden of receiving and coping with these newcomers in our midst has fallen not on the intellectuals, Labour Members of Parliament and others of that ilk but on ordinary English working-class people. Surely they are entitled to a voice here.
Vast changes have been made in the cities because of the large numbers of immigrants living there. The local English people were never asked about this. They never had to vote on it. They must have views about the future of this influx. They look to us to safeguard their position. Everyone here—immigrant or non-immigrant—wants to safeguard our position. As I said, fortunately we have not had much bloodshed or rioting, and relations generally are good, but as the figures on those who are still coming in are published, more and more people are starting to say, "Will this go on, or can we say that enough is enough?" This is a small attempt to have a little more control, and very wise it is. It should be welcomed by everyone in the House and outside.
8.43 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary began his speech somewhat censoriously by suggesting that the Labour party was using immigration issues in an opportunistic way and then, to justify his Government's policy, reiterated the view that racial harmony depends upon a firm, fair immigration policy. It is by his tests, of firmness and fairness—especially fairness—that it is right to judge the proposals on DNA profiling. In their present state, the right hon. Gentleman has not resolved the doubts about their application. I do not believe that they meet the test of fairness.
The aim in testing only first-time settlement applicants is to avoid the possibility of disputes which, in the past, have been protracted and troublesome to immigration authorities. The repeated application cases most require the assistance of DNA testing. I should like to hear from the Minister of State why he proposes to confine the use of DNA testing in this way. Is it simply on grounds of cost?
Another issue, which I hoped that the Home Secretary would resolve, concerns how the scheme should be funded. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) drew attention to the apparent contradictions between the statements made by the Minister of State and the Home Secretary on the extent to which there was to be
390
public funding of DNA testing. There appears to be some intention that certain categories of individual should be assisted by the taxpayer, but it is possible to interpret the Minister's utterances as meaning that the cost is to be borne by all immigrants. That would certainly not be an appropriate or fair test. If the Minister can clear up this point now, I shall be grateful to him.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): It might be convenient to the House if I clear up that point, which was raised also by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). There is no intention that the taxpayer should pay any part of the cost of DNA tests. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said that many times. The only exception lies in the possibility of legal aid for DNA tests. We have said many times that, if we introduced a general scheme for DNA tests—as we are proposing to do on a voluntary basis—the scheme's cost would not in any way fall on the taxpayer.
Mr. Maclennan: The whole House will have been shocked by the Minister's intervention. It is clear that the system cannot be fair unless there is some financial support from the taxpayer. Undoubtedly, the taxpayer will save considerably through the use of DNA testing rather than the alternative methods of verification which are presently employed and which involve searches and expenditure, especially in Bangladesh and on the Indian sub-continent. It is clear that DNA testing can operate only when rich or relatively rich applicants seek to employ it. By no standard can that be regarded as fair.
Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: This is a short debate and many hon. Members with major constituency interests wish to speak, so I shall not give way.
DNA testing can prove, almost beyond peradventure, the paternity of applicants. Should this system be available to those who, it transpires, have been refused entry to this country but are now over the age of majority? Here again, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the situation. The Home Secretary spoke of the importance of there being rules in giving the assurance of fairness. In respect of this important issue—we have not yet been told precisely how many people are estimated to be affected by it—the Home Secretary is saying—
Mr. Renton: Eight thousand.
Mr. Maclennan: In that case, this is almost a de minimis problem. The question must be answered: what are the rules? It is clear from what the Home Secretary said that it is to be a wholly discretionary operation. By his own test, we should have rules if we want to instill a sense of fairness.
A number of criteria may be prayed in aid by those who wish to argue compassionate grounds, which have been referred to in another place by the Minister's colleague. There are wide circumstances in which it may be possible to argue a compassionate case, but equally, it is possible that those could be construed extremely restrictively to deprive the offspring of those entitled to live here of the right to join their families. It is incomprehensible for a party in government which proclaims the virtues of family life to argue in that way. It will be incomprehensible to

391
many fair-minded people that people whose right to be here can now be established will be denied that possibility because of an exercise in discretion by a Secretary of State.
I am afraid that the great opportunity offered by the perfection of this technique has been missed. There was an opportunity to put an end to much of the misery and uncertainty involved in establishing paternity and family links, which flow from a lack of documentation, especially in the Indian sub-continent. It must be a matter of deep regret to those who wish to see racial harmony fostered and sustained by a fair immigration policy that the Government have thrown away so cavalierly this great opportunity.
8.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I want to begin by saying to my hon. Friend the Minister that he probably has the most unattractive job in the whole Government. He is confronted daily with cases of human misery in which he has to take extremely hard decisions, not only on the basis of each particular case, but on the basis of how it fits into the general framework. Men and women all over this country and around the world are accountable to him and are busily engaged in trying to interpret the wishes of this place and of the Minister against a background of similar heartbreak and difficulty. I pay them tribute for the way in which they carry out that task.
I have no personal experience of being an immigrant or a would-be immigrant. I was fortunate enough to be born, strictly speaking, a cockney, and I have never had any doubt about my eligibility to be a British citizen. However, that does not mean that one cannot experience some of the difficulties vicariously. When I was working at Conservative central office, I was the director of community affairs for four and a half years. One of my tasks in that interesting period was to extend throughout the Conservative party mechanisms whereby members of that party could become far better acquainted with the new citizens who had arrived from different parts of the world, about whom, in their ignorance, many members of the party were anxious and towards whom they were hostile.
Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but in matters of personal relations, there is no doubt that ignorance of custom, language and religion is often a reasonable excuse for feeling strange and, because of the way in which human nature works, consequently feeling condemnatory in one way or another. I believe that the work we did then played a small part in the creation of a wider understanding within the Conservative party—
Mr. Jim Marshall: It has failed here.
Mr. Rowe: We were more successful in some parts of the country than in others. I believe that that played some part in changing the climate of opinion. However, there is still far too much prejudice in this country. It is noticeable in many statistics and in the accounts people give to Members of Parliament of the way in which they have been treated. One must, of course, always be extremely careful about the natural tendency of those who belong to a minority, whatever it may be, when they do not get what they want, to assume that their failure to do so is directly attributable to their membership of that minority, when
392
that is frequently not the case. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there is still too much prejudice and too much difficulty for the minorities in climbing the ladders which at least now exist for them to climb.
Such difficulty is one of the ingredients in the unfortunate riots and protests over the Salman Rushdie book. I believe that the law on blasphemy should be repealed rather than extended. It is flouted to the point where it is absurd to retain it and it is therefore unworkable. It is also philosophically unsound, because it is rooted in theocracy and I believe that theocracy is a recipe for bad government and oppression. A theocratic Government are very different from a society under God.
It is perfectly clear that the pressures are made worse when many people come in at great speed and, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, there is no division between Government and Opposition about the need for immigration controls. I sometimes think that hon. Members of all parties are rather like small children who, behind the security of their garden gate, poke fun at other small children and then run back into the security of their front hall because they know that the children will not cross the fence that has been erected. That fence of immigration control has been erected by both parties in this House equally. It is salutary for Opposition Members to remember the large part played by their own party in building those walls.
I should like to distance myself considerably from the remarks of my respected and revered hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), who echoed an argument which I hope is dead, or at least nearly dead. In an ideal world, there would be no frontiers and people could move from one part of the world to another without let or hindrance. Indeed, in our favoured corner of the world that is exactly what we are constructing. This debate has already shown some of the difficulties that we shall encounter if we are successful in that construction. Clearly, this is not an ideal world, and it is essential that we have a firm and fair immigration policy.
In the troubled and worrying debate about Hong Kong, it is important that my hon. Friends, Ministers and others should be sparing in their use of the argument about millions of people; if we are to be a great deal more generous about the numbers of people from Hong Kong whom we eventually receive into this country—and I believe that we have a duty to be generous—that argument will have done no good to those people's chances of having a proper reception here. We should not use massive figures such as 3·5 million or 5 million people, because that will stir up anxieties that we should not invite.
I seek the reassurance of my hon. Friend on one element of the policy. I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) who, in November of last year, pointed out his anxiety that married couples should be reunited as quickly as possible when it is proved that they have a right to be together. It is a flaw in our immigration policy that, where people have established a bona fide right to be together, they can then be denied that right by administrative procedures stretching over many years.
Do I understand from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that, if children below the age of 18 are proved by the DNA process to have family bonds, there will be no question of the procedures being extended once these children become more than 18, and

393
that their age will not then be used as a pretext for excluding them? If that were the case, it would be grossly improper. It is easy to discover that, by sheer inadvertence or lack, somebody's case has been extended for two or three years by the administrative procedures and that that person has somehow fallen foul of his or her right to enter this country. It is easy to turn that into a matter of policy. I stress that that would be a shabby way in which to proceed.
In conclusion, I turn to the other side of the coin. Unless something has happened to her aeroplane, my wife is in Madras at the moment, where she is working for some weeks with a skilled paediatrician who is still in Madras because of his Christian belief that he has a duty to return to the people of Madras the benefits that he has enjoyed. He is the only member of his class in medical school to have remained in India. That is a commentary on the whole business of immigration. The fact that some countries have too great a readiness to admit foreign nationals can easily lead the home country to become emasculated. That is undesirable—
Ms. Gordon rose—
Mr. Rowe: I shall not give way, as I am just about to end my speech.
It is wholly appropriate to have a firm and fair immigation policy. Where our techniques have improved to the point at which we can remove doubt speedily, I believe that we should turn that speed to the advantage of the applicant and not allow the adminstrative procedures to drag out.
9.4 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary was hopelessly wrong to make a connection between immigration policy and good community relations in our inner-city areas. If he needs a connection, he should study very carefully the speech by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) because that was the kind of speech which causes great unpleasantness and distrust and also causes a great deal of damage to good community relations in Britain. That speech echoed sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) in a short debate last week. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will distance himself from the comments which have been made by his two hon. Friends. It is important that in their official policy the Government make it absolutely clear that the extremist statements that we have heard are not part of Government policy.
The Home Secretary's written reply to a parliamentary question on 14 June which set out the Government's policy on DNA testing is a recognition of the success of such tests. As this is our first debate of this length on the subject, we should pay tribute to the work of Professor Alec Jefferies of Leicester university and others who have worked in this area for several years. We should also place on record our appreciation of the work of groups like the Divided Families Campaign, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service which have worked very hard urging the Government to initiate pilot studies and to publish their report.
Three years have passed since a press conference was held on 10 January 1986 at Dhaka airport when the
394
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department first announced the pilot schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will recall the number of attempts that he and I made in Committee to press the Minister to publish the report as quickly as possible. Although many promises were made, it was several years before the report was published.
When the report was published, the greatest sigh of relief came from those who had waited in queues and those waiting to have relatives brought to this country. Those are the kind of people who visit me, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and other hon. Members at our surgeries at weekends. Those people waited in hope that the Home Secretary would announce a fair policy which would reunite them with their families.
I am reminded of a quote from the oldest book of all:
"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginnings of days, nor ends of life".
The orphans of the Prime Minister's immigration policy, they waited in queues. Those people have waited for a statement and they have been cruelly misled. The Home Secretary has let them down in several vital respects.
It is right that we should place this debate in the context of overall immigration control. As the Home Secretary said that the Minister of State was fair game for any criticism, I hope that he does not mind if I mention the unprecedented crisis which now grips the Home Office. There is a crisis at Lunar house, where my constituents must wait up to two years to receive decisions on nationalisation applications, and there is a crisis besetting the passport offices. There is also a crisis besetting hon. Members who, when they write to the Minister, must wait upwards of six weeks for a reply. Those who were present in this House on 16 November 1987 will recall the Home Secretary's statement at column 789 that he hoped to initiate an immigration policy that would provide a better customer service. The reality is quite different. If the Home Secretary, the Minister and the Home Office want to know about that customer service, they should speak to people who wait in the queues at Clive house and Lunar house for decisions from the Minister of State.
I want now to consider the cost of the scheme. I was shocked to hear the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is outrageous that poor families will have to pay a substantial amount to satisfy the test criteria. There have been various estimates, ranging from £100 to £130 per applicant. In addition, there is the threat that entry clearance fees will be increased, allegedly to pay for the test. That is an additional economic barrier for those who seek to come to this country.
The taxpayer has benefited and will continue to benefit from the DNA test. There will be an enormous saving of time in the preparation of documents, explanatory statements and other documents before the tribunal, and also a saving of the tribunal's time. A recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) stated that the cost of an appeal was approximately £85. If that is right—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it will result in a substantial saving.
I now refer to over-age applicants. It is manifestly unfair that, now that the Government have acknowledged that thousands of mistakes have been made, people who legitimately and fairly applied to come to this country and who knew instinctively that they were the children of their

395
parents, and felt that not only as a bond of nature but passionately, were told by immigration officers that they were not the children of their parents and that they would have to appeal and wait. They now find that what they have always said was true—that they know exactly who their parents were—but they will not be able to come here as of right.
We are concerned only with a finite number of people. If we are talking about a fair system that can be sold to inner-city areas and is based on family values, surely it is right that those people should be allowed to come to this country without having to rely on the Home Secretary's so-called compassion.
The test should be free for those who wish to use it. The Home Secretary should allow in those who applied before their eighteenth birthday and who were caught by the age limit. As other hon. Members have said, blood sample testing should take place in different parts of the sub-continental countries, and individuals should not have to face the burden of additional costs when travelling to posts abroad. Those who reapply should be given preference and should be put in an expedited queue. It is outrageous to expect them to reapply, sit in queues and, possibly, wait for nearly two years when their cases are strong and right.
What compensation is the Minister prepared to offer those who have suffered because of the Government's mistake? The Minister and the Home Secretary have deliberately delayed the publication of the report for several months, if not years. The Government should compensate those who have suffered untold misery.
We hear cliches when Members of Parliament come to this forum of the nation and talk about constituents who have been waiting for years to be reunited with their families. I am not saying that the Minister is an absolutely insensitive man. He has shown a degree of compassion that has permitted certain of my constituents to remain in this country. We told him that those people had a proper case, delays occurred, but he eventually allowed them to stay. We are not saying that, as an individual, he is without compassion, but we are saying that the policy is without compassion.
The policy will add to the anxiety and the hardship suffered by thousands and thousands of people throughout the country. If we are talking about having good race relations and improving community relations, we should ensure that we treat everyone fairly. We should treat those who come from India, Pakistan and the sub-continent countries with the same affection as we are now treating our colleagues in Germany, France, Portugal and elsewhere in Europe. We should not let them suffer because we are now part of the European Economic Community, which will, of course, allow millions of people to come here as of right.
The Government had a golden opportunity to act as the midwife for family reunion to those who had long given up hope of ever being reunited with their families. Grudgingly, the Government have admitted that the Alec Jefferies test was correct, and grudgingly, they have accepted the campaigns and the hard work of the voluntary organisations. They have accepted that those organisations were right after all. However, the knife in the back of those voluntary organisations and of all those who
396
wait in the queues abroad is the terrible burden of cost that is now being imposed, and the injustice of the age limit. Even at this stage, I appeal to the Minister—as a loving parent—in humanity, in justice and in compassion, to think again.
9.16 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The phrasing of the motion is, to say the least, misleading. I believe that it is designed to be misleading to different groups of the British people. Everyone would accept that tough and fair immigration policies are a necessary part of race relations. It is unfortunate that Members on the Labour Front Bench have sought to mislead different groups in Britain and have in many ways sought to rubbish DNA testing, which can surely be regarded only as an advance in fairness and something that should be welcomed by both sides of the House.
Like many other hon. Members, I wish to concentrate on the last few words of the motion, which concern the effects on Britain of having immigrant populations and people who are black or Asian and British. I believe that that is one of the most important issues facing society.
It is estimated by the Institute of Race Relations that there may be 70,000 racial attacks a year. Certainly, in my constituency in suburban London, I receive a large number of complaints, especially from Asian people, about racial attacks and racial abuse. If we are honest, we will admit that that goes on, but that too many people turn a blind eye to it and just consider it part of the background to British society. But it is not part of that background —such behaviour needs to be condemned at every stage and must be taken seriously.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider one idea. It is not a new idea, but it is one that I believe would make an important contribution towards dealing with the problem. The Metropolitan police need a racial attack squad, just as they have a serious crime squad, a fraud squad and a squad to specialise in any of the areas of crime which need more than local expertise. They need a racial attack squad for serious cases, to give advice to local police forces, to formulate policy and to teach techniques for dealing with racial matters. I am not saying that the Metropolitan police have not made some advances in dealing with racial harassment and attacks, but they can do more, and I would look to them to do more.
Too many people still consider it acceptable to hold racist views. Such views help to categorise black and Asian people, but strong leadership at all levels will help the emerging middle classes in those communities. They will represent the genuine voice of those communities, and we want to hear it. Everyone in a position of leadership should encourage good race relations. We need a drive against discrimination, but not a re-run of discredited so-called "anti-racist" policies. We need tangible measures that will make a difference.
The Government have an enormous part to play. When Government money is used to fund major projects in the inner cities, the work force should be representative of the ethnic make-up of the area. Any company that wanted such funding would soon get the message and would employ a good proportion of black and Asian people if the Government insisted on considering the ethnic make-up of

397
the companies, and such people would not merely be employed as building workers—they would be employed throughout the company management structure.
The Government could act much more directly through the Civil Service. They must review their employment practices, not just for the lower grades but for those right at the top. Our record for tailoring our recruitment procedures to the true make-up of the population can only be described as pathetic. It is clear that the Civil Service has continued to recruit the same sort of people in the same old way, without regard to the reality of British society outside the narrow class band from which recruits are drawn. Something must be done about that.
My right hon. Friend was right to praise the advances that have been made in the recruitment of black and Asian people to the police, but the record is not stunning. Given that so few black and Asian people are part of our police force, it is not surprising that the police have difficulty policing some areas. I do not underestimate the difficulties of recruiting such people, but if other countries can manage to recruit large numbers of their minority populations, so can we. The minority communities also have an important part to play in this. Improvements will not be made unless the minority communities desist from actively persuading people not to join the police. If the ordinary, sensible view is to prevail, a recruitment push from inside the black and Asian communities must be mounted against the predictable, damaging and regrettably prevailing anti-police view. Only by such assertiveness from ordinary black and Asian people will the majority learn that, far from fearing minorities, Britain has everything to gain from black and Asian British people playing their part at the centre of our community.
The most important ingredient is the contribution that the minorities can make. It is in all our interests to be proud of being British. That means that we must challenge the parrot cry of "Uncle Tom" and recognise that the interests of the majority are not those of a politically motivated minority. It means isolating the extremists. It also means that each black and Asian person should find his role in our society. British society needs their input, not as Asian or black people or as people speaking for a minority, but as individual British people who care about Britain, who care about where they live, and who have a contribution to make and a part to play. This is part of a two-way contract, and no amount of work from one side will make up for lack of effort by the other. The potential rewards for Britain and its people are huge. It is worth the effort not just because of what we can achieve, but because of the consequences of our failure to achieve it.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I wish to dissociate myself from the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), although I do so for a different reason. I do so because the vision of Britain put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge simply does not exist, probably never did exist and never will exist in the future. It is not right to put forward such an unattainable vision. It is 20 years since Enoch Powell made his powerful but career-ending speech. Many people saw that speech as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was a callous and deliberately misleading speech which he sought to use as a means of promoting his political career, but it backfired on him—as all who seek to use this issue for their political careers will see it backfire on them.
9.24 pm
Ms. Mildred Gordon: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has done something to put right the shameful speeches that we have heard from many hon. Members on the other side of the House. The Home Secretary said tonight that there must be rules, and we have been talking about people who have every right to come to this country within the rules that this Government laid down. Nevertheless, they were branded as liars, as cheats, as people who were trying to get in here by fraud and, in addition to the humiliation that they suffered in this way, they suffered long separation from their families.
I do believe that if this had happened to white people there would have been a demand for compensation. Anybody who has been wrongfully branded, and their character torn apart in this way, has the right to compensation. Yet, they are not even going to be given considerate treatment, from what we have heard tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is quite right to raise the question of people from the EC countries. Nobody ever says that we are going to be swamped by white Europeans coming to this country, and nobody counts the numbers. But there seems to be a lot of political mileage in appealing to the basest instincts of racists by talking about being swamped and playing the numbers game, when we should be talking about dealing fairly with those families from the Asian sub-continent who have been given a very unfair deal indeed.
It seems that the cases of those who apply for re-entry are not going to be expedited and that those who cannot afford to go through DNA testing will find themselves looked upon askance as though that means that they do not have a valid case, and that is a very grave danger. I also feel that the Home Secretary's example was a very shocking one. He talked of an old woman in this country who had three sons who could well afford to keep her although she was living on supplementary benefit—so why should we allow the sons to come here even though they were wrongly kept out? He said that she should go back to her own country. I find echoes in that of the crudest form of racism—one which says, "Get back to your own country." Surely it is easier for the sons to come and start a new life here, than for the old lady, who needs the care and attention of her sons, and who has been settled here for many years, to be uprooted and to go back to a place where she now has no connections. What kind of compassion and what kind of humanity is that?
I wanted to raise another question, but I feel hesitant to raise it in the atmosphere which has been present in this House tonight. That was a question which no one has raised, about men who sponsor a child whom they truly believe to be their own child and are prepared to take responsibility for that child, and the DNA tests prove that they are not the father of the child. That happens, I am afraid, in families in every country. I do believe that judgment should be exercised, if the male sponsor truly believes the child to be his and he has taken responsibility for that child, and that that family should be allowed to be united and the children allowed to come here.
Ms. Short: Before the pilot study was launched, we were given firm undertakings by the Foreign Office that in those instances, which happen in villages in the Indian sub-continent and, I am sure, in the families of hon.

399
Members, there would be honourable behaviour. We were assured that there would be privacy and the whole family would be allowed to come here. I hope that the Minister will reiterate the original assurance that we were given on that point.
Ms. Gordon: We have a very short time and I just want to raise one or two points about the changes in the new immigration rules, to get away from DNA testing, and to talk about how harshly the immigration rules are now being applied and how, strangely, people are often deported on the weekend when they cannot get hold of anybody to help them, and of how sometimes we appear to be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
I had a frantic appeal from the headmaster of the Cubitt Town primary school about a valuable member of staff who was being told that she must leave because her original permit did not allow her to teach. I had to intervene and fortunately I got that teacher permission to stay; otherwise, another 30 children would have been without a teacher. Yesterday, Conservative Members did not seem too worried that there would be 1,000 children without teachers in Tower Hamlets. If the children had been the children of English middle-class parents they might have been concerned, but because they were the children of Bangladeshis they were not. Fortunately, that teacher was able to stay. If it had happened on a Friday or a Saturday, as in many other cases, she might have been bundled out of the country and those 30 children would not have had a teacher.
I had another case of a Nigerian, a student who had invested a great deal of time, effort and money into studying here. His allowance from Nigeria arrived late so he was late in re-registering. When the money came, he re-registered. Nevertheless, he was told to go and the immigration authorities would not hear any kind of appeal. What is the sense in that? He came here to study, and to take back the benefits of his knowledge to his own country. Why should he be forced to leave in the middle of his studies because of a technicality?
The last thing that I want to point out is the harshness meted out to some families who appeal against deportation orders hoping to win their case and are suddenly informed that their case is lost and are told they have to leave within a few days. No matter if they have children; they are given no time to inoculate them, no time to find somewhere for the children to live and no time to settle up their affairs in Britain. Nowadays, if one appeals on their behalf for an extension of time, one is frequently turned down.
I hope that the sort of changes that have taken place will be noted and that something will be done to ameliorate the position of those unfortunate people. Not only is it harmful and damaging to them, it is harmful and damaging to the reputation of this country, which once stood high as a country that had compassion, a country where people could find refuge and asylum. Now it is beginning to get a reputation for harshness, callousness and inhumanity.
9.31 pm
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate. I should like to pay tribute to all in my constituency, in the
400
city of Leeds and in this country who are immigrants or the children or grandchildren of immigrants and who have contributed so largely to the success of Leeds and to the richness of this country. A great many immigrant families live in my constituency and in Leeds. From the highest to the most humble, they contribute at all levels of society. They do so willingly and extremely enthusiastically, and the community responds positively to them. That is the perspective in which race relations in this country today should be put.
I am sad about the Opposition motion because it seems so fatuous. It is contrived out of an attempt to whip up feelings—particularly among immigrant communities—which do not really exist. The leaders of ethnic minorities have told me that they believe it right that this country should have firm but fair immigration controls. Our changes in the rules will make those controls even fairer. Most people to whom I have spoken recognise and welcome that—
Ms. Short rose—
Mr. Kirkhope: I am not giving way, as I do not have much time.
I want first to refer to what I believe is a welcome easing of the rules on husbands of women admitted to the United Kingdom for employment. It is nonsensical for the system to work in one way but not in the other. I am delighted at the change because it will remove many of the difficulties that families here have experienced as a result of the imbalance in the way the system works.
So far, DNA testing has proved successful and, interestingly, where it has been used, 86 per cent. of the tests have proved the applicant's position. It is an important and useful test and I know that most of the ethnic minorities in my area welcome it. I am pleased to see that it will now be made available more generally, although it is to be on a voluntary and not an obligatory basis, and I am sure that many people will take it up.
There remains the issue of whether the tests should be subject to a charge. We have heard what the test might cost, and undoubtedly in some cases that will be a considerable disincentive to poorer people. I was therefore interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the possibility of legal aid, or some similar form of funding, to assist with testing.
Ms. Short: It is already available for appeals.
Mr. Kirkhope: I welcome that.
Once there is an entitlement, if a test is taken and the results support the entitlement, there must be some financial responsibility. It is simple to say that the test must always be at the applicant's cost, and in general that is probably right, but in some cases it should be possible for some assistance to be given so that the test can be made and something can be proved which would otherwise be more difficult to prove to the authorities. I hope that something will be done about that aspect.
More than anything else, delays in receiving information about confirmation or even rejection of applications for visas cause difficulty to those who wish to come and have every good reason to do so. I often have to deal with delays. Inevitably, it is difficult to get information from overseas because communications are slow, but once the required information has been provided to our High Commissions we should do our best to avoid

401
delays and to arrange interviews speedily. If people are not to be given visas, it would be helpful all round if they could be told so speedily. They might accept not getting permission, but they would like to know the position as soon as possible.
Under this Government, immigration rules have always been both fair and firm. The changes will clearly make them even fairer in the eyes of any reasonable person. I therefore find the Opposition's attitude incomprehensible. They were responsible for the introduction of immigration rules when they were in Government because they realised that it was important, not just for the country but for the ethnic minorities, that there should be a limit on the numbers coming in. Now, in a hypocritical fashion which I find ridiculous, they are trying to make out that the Government's rules—which, if anything, ease the position and make it fairer—are somehow appalling and terrible. Their attitude is disgraceful and cynical, and unthinking about good race relations and our standing in the eyes of the world.
9.39 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: Listening to the criticism by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) of the Opposition motion, I could not but be struck by the fact that one or two of his points entirely backed up our criticism of the Government's immigration rules and their announcement on DNA testing. I was also struck by his terminology. He referred to the "immigrants" in his constituency. We would all do well to remember that we are talking about the rights of British citizens. It matters not whether they are white or black; they are British citizens, and we must always bear that in mind.
We should also bear in mind that the Home Secretary is wrong to imply that we should either accept the Government's laws and rules or accept none at all. We are talking about the ways in which the Government's regulations and the immigration laws affect British citizens, and the central issue is the double-talk and double standards that the Government are applying when dealing with different British citizens. The leaked Home Office document bears that out. Referring to the timing of last week's announcement of the change in the immigration rules, it states:
"we see advantage in combining the two announcements"—
DNA and immigration rules—
"thus avoiding two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession."
That tells us a good deal about the Government's attitude.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: I do not have time to give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the debate.
The Government talk about family unity, but when they are confronted with the spectacle of divided families it is an entirely different story. Asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) about the rights of those who can now prove their cases through DNA testing, the Prime Minister lashed out—not with the detailed and specific figures that we are used to hearing when she defends her Government's record on the NHS, but with wild figures of 40,000 or 50,000. The Home Secretary has told us tonight, however, that only about 8,000 people are involved.
Ms. Short: That is the maximum.
Mr. Darling: The Government have reluctantly introduced DNA testing because they know that there is no way around it. Applicants, however, still cannot choose DNA testing at the outset, and we are told that, instead of a simple bureaucratic barrier, a barrier both bureaucratic and financial is to be placed in the way of those who wish to prove that they are related to their mothers and fathers.
There has been more double-talk about financing the scheme. The Government say that no announcement has been made, and the Home Office memorandum makes it clear that the announcement will not say how it is to be financed. It states:
"The intention is to make a separate announcement on the funding arrangements shortly before the scheme comes into effect".
The scheme is due to come into effect in November. The Government say that they are only now starting dicussions with manufacturers and the rest, but it is abundantly clear that settlement fees will be introduced. I suspect that the announcement will be made when Parliament is not sitting so that we can avoid one of the nasty unpleasant little rows to which the memorandum refers.
Children are being separated from their parents because of the unfair attitude of immigration officers, yet no sympathy is to be shown to over-age applicants who can now prove that they have relatives here. The Government say that, provided they pass four hurdles, "compassion" can be exercised. The document, however, makes it abundantly clear that it is crucial to ensure that that concession remains the exception rather than the norm.
We can see the hardship that this will cause. Let me give an example. A sponsor had a wife and five children in Bangladesh. Four of the children were admitted; the youngest was refused admission because the immigration officer said that he did not believe the parents. In other words, he said, "You are lying; this boy is not your child." Can hon. Members imagine how they would feel if told that their children did not belong to them, and that they were making it up? This young child can prove the relationship: it has been proved by DNA testing. Nevertheless, he must reapply and his reapplication will not be considered until 1991. Then he may have to come up against the Home Secretary's "compassion", for the Home Secretary, if he is still in his post, will be holding the line rigorously.
That is what we are complaining about—the unfairness and the double standards. Such standards would never be applied if we were dealing with the children of white parents, or those of parents from a different country. They are being applied only to certain countries, mostly those on the Indian sub-continent. The Government's attitude is blatantly discriminatory, and I am sorry that the Home Secretary saw no problem in it. I am also sorry that he does not understand that most parents regard their children as their children whether or not they are over 18. Someone does not cease to be the child of his mother or father simply because he has passed his 18th birthday.
The memorandum makes it abundantly clear that, no matter what is said in public, in private the reality will be quite different and that compassion will be exercised very rarely—I suspect when a horror story hits the front pages of newspapers in order to buy off that problem.
The Home Secretary referred to the fact that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is Mr. Compassion himself. My hon. Friend the

403
Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) complained that he had sometimes had to wait for six weeks for a reply. Recently, I had to wait six months for a reply concerning one of my constituents who had been trying to come to this country to study at an Edinburgh college. Mr. Compassion will be unable to solve the problems of people who are wrongly refused entry to this country—people who are over the age of 18 now, but who know that they are related and who have proved their case. It is no wonder that divided families simply do not believe the Government when they claim that they are operating anything like a fair system.
It is the same story when one considers other aspects of the Government's immigration policy. It is interesting to note that the high moral ground is claimed both inside and outside the House when the position of people living in Hong Kong is considered. Those who claim that high moral ground ought to examine some of the other practices adopted by this country in connection with our immigration regulations. Reference has been made to wives who have been denied the right to be joined by their husbands because immigration officers did not believe that their marriages were genuine. After 1992, however, any EC citizen will be able to come to this country with his or her spouse without let or hindrance. Surely British citizens ought to have the same right, no matter which country their spouse comes from.
The same applies to student visas. The Home Secretary said in his memorandum that there had been cases of abuse, particularly in west Africa. Is he telling us that students from America and Australia do not abuse the system from time to time? Why is it that only an American visitor will be able to become a student without having to return to the United States to reapply for entry? A visitor from Bangladesh or west Africa will have to return home and reapply to become a student in this country. There is no justification for such a broad axe approach. It cannot possibly be said that people from one country are somehow pathologically likely to abuse the system, while people from another country will not do so. By its very nature, that is discriminatory.
The Government attempted to nobble the immigration tribunals. They did so quite blatantly, they were found out and it had to be stopped. The Home Secretary referred to our treatment of tourists and visitors to this country, yet if one goes to Heathrow on any day of the week one finds that when immigration officers interview passengers who have arrived here on a plane from New York their attitude is entirely different from the one that they adopt towards passengers who have arrived here on a plane from Dhaka. To begin with, people who arrive here from Dhaka tend to be referred to as immigrants, whereas people who arrive here from New York are referred to as visitors or tourists. I am afraid to say that such double standards are endemic. What is worse, they are enshrined within the immigration rules and regulations of this country.
Does the Home Secretary not realise the hardship that the visa regime causes when people come to this country because they wish to attend a wedding or a funeral? If such a policy were to be adopted towards visitors from the United States and other similar countries, it would not be
404
tolerated. However, the Government are quite content to adopt such a policy in the case of visitors from the Indian sub-continent and certain African countries.
The Home Secretary suggested in his speech that the Opposition are trying to rake up trouble and prejudice. He should have listened to some of the speeches that have been made by Back Benchers on his own side of the House. We heard this evening a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). When we discussed the immigration rules a few days ago, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) made a speech that was racist, pure and simple. To give him credit, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said as much. However, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, did not say that. He thanked the hon. Member for Thurrock for his contribution but said that the hon. Gentleman had gone a little further than he yet wanted to go.
I hope that tonight the Minister of State will join his hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Harrow, West in repudiating what was said by the hon. Members for Halesowen and Stourbridge and for Thurrock and make it clear that their attitudes and views form no part of this Government's policy—if that is the case. Perhaps someone should tell the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge that 250 million to 300 million people will be able to come to this country, if they wish to do so, after 1992 and that nobody will be able to do anything about it once the single European market is in place.
Let us not hear any talk about prejudice or any belittling of our motives in initiating the debate tonight. The Government must realise that the way in which the immigration rules strike at the rights of British citizens is intolerable. If we say that we live in a truly multiracial society, we must realise that all British citizens are entitled to fair treatment. The treatment that is meted out to some of our citizens simply would not be tolerated if it were happening to white people in Britain. The front pages would be full of outrage and Ministers would be standing at the Dispatch Box full of outrage, putting to right the rules that were found to cause offence. Yet that does not happen, despite the way in which the immigration rules are working.
To the Tories, families may be statistics and refugees may be unfortunate problems; but to the individuals involved, parents separated from their children and children who wish to look after infirm or aged parents, it is not a matter of statistics. It is a matter of decency that should concern everyone in the House. The Government simply do not realise that. Conservative candidates say all sorts of nice things and smile at constituents when they are wooing support before an election, but they should remember that the way in which the Government's rules and regulations operate cause a manifest injustice to British citizens in this country. If we are going to claim the moral high ground, the Government should start by accepting that mistakes have been made and injustices have been caused and must be put right if they are to claim to be a decent and humane Government.
9.51 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We have had a useful debate, although we have just listened to a speech of extraordinary ignorance by the hon.

405
Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). It was particularly wrong of him, as a lawyer, to make the comment that the Government had attempted to nobble the adjudicators. He knows that that is incorrect and has been answered in a parliamentary answer to him.
Mr. Darling: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: I shall not give way as I have only nine minutes left. The hon. Gentleman should not make such comments.
Mr. Darling rose—
Mr. Renton: I must move on.
I want to thank my hon. Friends and all those who have taken part in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for his tribute to the immigration service for the conscientiousness with which it implements decisions throughout the country and at our consulates abroad. Those decisions are taken by Ministers and by Parliament and the immigration service has a very difficult role to fulfill. In answer to my hon. Friend's concern about the delays in dealing with marriage cases, through the speeding up of the backlog—a constant wish of mine in the past two years—we have admitted an extra 1,200 spouses or fiances into the country in the past 12 months. They got their entry clearance through the speeding up of the process.
All those changes in our procedures and determinations to speed them up were voted against by the Labour Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) was also concerned about that, and I must stress that, as a result of those changes, the backlog on immigration cases had fallen from about 75,000 to about 30,000, and I hope that it will fall further in the 12 months ahead. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) should remember that every time he talks about the chaos at Lunar house. In the light of the changes that we have made and the dent that we are making in the backlog, I sincerely hope that soon—perhaps tonight—the hon. Gentleman will vote for rather than against our changes.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) about racial harassment in our towns and cities. I note with great interest his comments about further recruitment of blacks and Asians into the police force. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree with those sentiments and I hope that he will have a chance to pursue those remarks on a different occasion, perhaps in a debate about the police.
To my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) I must say that I agree with his remark about Britain's generosity in admitting immigrants. That was a necessary concomitant to our imperial and colonial responsibilities, but immigrants have not come only from the Commonwealth —we have had large numbers of refugees from Vietnam, Chile, Uganda and Poland. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the success of those immigrants, most of whom are now British citizens, and I wish them well in moving towards integration into our society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said that he was pleased that 86 per cent. of people who had recently taken the DNA test had passed it. In some measure, I am surprised that the figure was not 100 per
406
cent. as they all volunteered to take the test. My hon. Friend should remember that. One would expect that if they volunteered to take the test they would all pass it. It is significant that so many have recently taken and passed the test.
Against that background, I completely reject the charges of double standards and injustice in our treatment of the DNA process. I reject the comments by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that we reluctantly introduced DNA testing. The reverse is true. The Labour party should occasionally listen rather than utter its traditional cries of racism, bias and double standards. Over the past month, we have accepted the results of hundreds of DNA tests.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He had an Adjournment debate on the subject last week, and I have nothing to add. We have accepted the results of the test—
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State has four minutes left to tell hon. Members what they most want to know. How will the DNA scheme be paid for?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister—
Mr. Madden: Will he—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will not have a chance to do that.
Mr. Renton: I was about to reply to that point. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), we do not propose that the cost should be borne by the taxpayer. We intend exactly the opposite—that the cost should be spread between the generality of applicants for entry clearance. We are working out with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a proper means of achieving that and, as I said in the debate two weeks ago, we are discussing the cost with the companies involved. As soon as we have reached a decision, an announcement will be made to the House.
I was surprised when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) so firmly said that he intended to abolish the primary purpose test. He well knows that that test was introduced by the Labour Government in 1978 and that it was aimed against marriages of convenience. Why did the Labour Goverment introduce it? It was aimed against plain abuse of marriage for immigration purposes.
Mr. Short: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was probably working in the Home Office at the time and will know precisely why the Labour Government introduced it. They introduced it to stop abuse.
Ms. Short: That is a totally different matter.
Mr. Renton: We subsequently introduced—
Ms. Short rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time.
Mr. Renton: The primary purpose test was introduced to ensure that marriage was not used as a means of obtaining settlement in this country.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook, with one of his big gestures—
Ms. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister referred to me personally but did not give way. Is that not against all the conventions of the House?
Mr. Speaker: It is up to the Minister whether he gives way or not.
Mr. Renton: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, with one of those big gestures that he tends to make in debates, that the primary purpose test keeps out 12 people for every one that it lets in.
Mr. Hattersley indicated dissent.
Mr. Renton: That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said. I took a note as he was speaking, and it will appear in Hansard tomorrow.
Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Renton: I will not give way. That means that, using last year's statistics, the right hon. Gentleman would be suggesting that about 90,000 spouses and fiances came in one year from the Indian sub-continent alone. It is just that sort of reality that the Opposition could not fulfil. In government they would run away from the policies that they proclaim in opposition.
Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 249.

Division No. 281]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clay, Bob

Allen, Graham

Clelland, David

Alton, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Anderson, Donald

Cohen, Harry

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Armstrong, Hilary

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Corbett, Robin

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barron, Kevin

Cousins, Jim

Battle, John

Crowther, Stan

Beckett, Margaret

Cryer, Bob

Beith, A. J.

Cunningham, Dr John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Darling, Alistair

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Blair, Tony

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Blunkett, David

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

Boateng, Paul

Dewar, Donald

Bradley, Keith

Dixon, Don

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Dobson, Frank

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Doran, Frank

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Douglas, Dick

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Buckley, George J.

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Caborn, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Callaghan, Jim

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

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Flannery, Martin

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Flynn, Paul

Canavan, Dennis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Foster, Derek

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Foulkes, George

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Fraser, John

408

Fyfe, Maria

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Galbraith, Sam

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Galloway, George

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Morgan, Rhodri

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Morley, Elliott

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Gordon, Mildred

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Gould, Bryan

Mowlam, Marjorie

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mullin, Chris

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Murphy, Paul

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Nellist, Dave

Grocott, Bruce

O'Neill, Martin

Harman, Ms Harriet

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pike, Peter L.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Henderson, Doug

Primarolo, Dawn

Hinchliffe, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Radice, Giles

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Randall, Stuart

Hood, Jimmy

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Richardson, Jo

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Robertson, George

Howells, Geraint

Robinson, Geoffrey

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hoyle, Doug

Rowlands, Ted

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Ruddock, Joan

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Sheerman, Barry

Ingram, Adam

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Janner, Greville

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Short, Clare

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Skinner, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Kennedy, Charles

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

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Lamond, James

Soley, Clive

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lewis, Terry

Steinberg, Gerry

Livsey, Richard

Stott, Roger

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Straw, Jack

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Loyden, Eddie

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McAllion, John

Turner, Dennis

McAvoy, Thomas

Vaz, Keith

McCartney, Ian

Wall, Pat

Macdonald, Calum A.

Wallace, James

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McKelvey, William

Wareing, Robert N.

McLeish, Henry

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Maclennan, Robert

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McWilliam, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Madden, Max

Winnick, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Marek, Dr John

Worthington, Tony

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wray, Jimmy

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Meale, Alan

Mr. Frank Haynes, and

Michael, Alun

Mr. Allen Adams.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

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

Alexander, Richard

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Allason, Rupert

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, James

Burt, Alistair

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Butcher, John

Atkins, Robert

Butler, Chris

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carrington, Matthew

Bevan, David Gilroy

Carttiss, Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cash, William

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Boswell, Tim

Chapman, Sydney

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Chope, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Churchill, Mr

409

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hind, Kenneth

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Colvin, Michael

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

Conway, Derek

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cran, James

Hunter, Andrew

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, David

Irvine, Michael

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

Jack, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jackson, Robert

Day, Stephen

Janman, Tim

Devlin, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Key, Robert

Dunn, Bob

Kilfedder, James

Durant, Tony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dykes, Hugh

Kirkhope, Timothy

Emery, Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evennett, David

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Knowles, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Knox, David

Favell, Tony

Lang, Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Latham, Michael

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lawrence, Ivan

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Forman, Nigel

Lee, John (Pendle)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forth, Eric

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lightbown, David

Franks, Cecil

Lilley, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

French, Douglas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fry, Peter

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gardiner, George

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McCrindle, Robert

Gill, Christopher

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maclean, David

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McLoughlin, Patrick

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Malins, Humfrey

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mans, Keith

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maples, John

Gregory, Conal

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Grist, Ian

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hague, William

Maude, Hon Francis

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hanley, Jeremy

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hannam, John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

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

Mellor, David

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Harris, David

Miller, Sir Hal

Haselhurst, Alan

Mills, Iain

Hawkins, Christopher

Miscampbell, Norman

Hayes, Jerry

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Mitchell, Sir David

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Moate, Roger

Heddle, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Morrison, Sir Charles

410

Moss, Malcolm

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mudd, David

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Neale, Gerrard

Stokes, Sir John

Nelson, Anthony

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Neubert, Michael

Sumberg, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Summerson, Hugo

Nicholls, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Temple-Morris, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Paice, James

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Patnick, Irvine

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Pawsey, James

Thurnham, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Tracey, Richard

Portillo, Michael

Tredinnick, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Trippier, David

Price, Sir David

Trotter, Neville

Raffan, Keith

Twinn, Dr Ian

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Redwood, John

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Renton, Tim

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rhodes James, Robert

Waldegrave, Hon William

Riddick, Graham

Walden, George

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Waller, Gary

Roe, Mrs Marion

Ward, John

Rost, Peter

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Warren, Kenneth

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Watts, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wells, Bowen

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wheeler, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Whitney, Ray

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Widdecombe, Ann

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wiggin, Jerry

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winterton, Nicholas

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Speller, Tony

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Yeo, Tim

Stanbrook, Ivor

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Tellers for the Noes:

Steen, Anthony

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

Stern, Michael

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House commends the Government's determination to operate an immigration policy which is both firm and fair, as evidenced by their new amended and consolidated immigration rules; and welcomes the Government's announcement on the use of DNA testing in immigration cases.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day

  Representation of the People Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

  Representation of the People Bill
    Clause 1

      EXTENSION OF PERMITTED PERIOD OF OVERSEAS RESIDENCE
      10.14 pm
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): We now come to amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert 'fifteen'.
      With this we may also discuss the following amendments: No. 4.
      No. 7, in page I, line 10, leave out 'twenty-five years' and insert 'ten'.
      Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 10, leave out `twenty-five' and insert 'twenty'.
      I could not be present in the Chamber for Second Reading last week. However, perhaps I can make it clear that the Opposition do not oppose the Bill in principle. We see that there is an argument for extending the time after which a voter may vote in elections in the country, but we do not believe that 25 years is justified.
      We believe that a period of five years was unduly restrictive, especially as it is now clear that a number of people will leave this country perhaps to take up work in Europe or in other parts of the world but will still maintain a lively interest in the affairs of this country.
      This Bill received its First Reading two days after the Conservatives had been humiliated in the European elections. My first reaction to the Bill was to think that the Government must be desperate if they were trying to rope in people who left the country up to 25 years ago. However, having considered the matter, especially in the light of my experience and that of some of my hon. Friends, it is clear that many overseas votes go to Labour as well as to other parties. The fears that were expressed initially that all overseas voters were somehow going to support the Government, are unjustified. Many people who have left this country to work abroad realise the damage that the Government are doing to this country. They are more than happy to vote for the Labour party to see this Government removed from office. I have no fears that by allowing an extension of the franchise in this way there will somehow be more votes for the Conservatives. I suspect that just as the mood is changing among voters resident in the United Kingdom, so those working and living abroad and reading reports of what is happening in this country will realise that it is time for a change and vote for the Labour party.
      In that spirit, I have moved amendment No. 4 which will allow a person to vote for up to 20 years after having been included on an electoral register. I believe that 20 years is a sensible compromise but that 25 years is going a little too far and catering for people who have well and truly left this country and are unlikely to return. If the Government are prepared to accept the amendment, our
      412
      opposition to this clause and the associated clauses can be somewhat curtailed. Perhaps we could deal with the other matters as and when we reach them.
      The Chairman: I owe an apology to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I ask his pardon and call him to speak to amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Gary Waller: Thank you, Mr. Walker.
      During the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department put forward persuasive arguments for extending the existing period of five years during which British citizens abroad may continue to vote in our elections. I would certainly not disagree with those arguments. In suggesting that 25 years is too long, however, I wish to make a particular point which was apparently missed by all who spoke on Second Reading and was missed today by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling).
      In various democratic countries which do not have parliamentary systems, electors vote for a Government on a national basis. In Britain there is no national constituency in that sense. Our theory of representative democracy requires people to vote for a Member of Parliament in a constituency which happens to have on average about 65,000 electors. Within this country there is a degree of mobility which in certain areas such as inner London is very high indeed. There is a rapid turnover of electors from one register to the next.
      Most people who spend any length of time abroad retain links with this country, and if they take the trouble to register to vote we may assume that those links are reasonably close. However, we cannot assume that their links with a particular area will remain equally close. If, as is likely, they have relatives in this country, those relatives are likely to move several times in a period of 25 years and very probably into a different constituency. After a number of years, it is perhaps much more likely than not that if those overseas had to nominate where it would be most appropriate for them to vote, it would be somewhere quite different from the place where they lived or voted all those years before. After 25 years, their link with the place that they left could be extremely tenuous.
      In the case of someone who, perhaps, lived somewhere only as a child before moving abroad and whose parents or guardians have moved a dozen times since, it would be nonsense to expect them to vote for candidates in a constituency that they may not have visited since and may not even remember. It is not practicable to give overseas electors a vote in a constituency other than the one in which they last registered or in which their parents or guardians were registered. I agree with the Government's decision to enfranchise those people as the only practical solution, but nobody would dream of enfranchising any other group by allowing them to vote where they happened to be resident on a certain day up to 25 years ago.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: France, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and the United States all have territorial representation. People can continue to register, although in many cases they left more than 25 years ago.
      Mr. Waller: I happen to think that our form of parliamentary democracy is rather better than some of

      413
      those that my hon. Friend mentioned. Just because they do things in a certain way does not mean that we should necessarily follow them.
      An offensive extension of our system of representative democracy, which relies on constituencies, becomes intrinsically more offensive the longer the period is. There can be no objective way of determining how long the period should be, but if 25 years is considered right to denote a continuing link with this country-1 should be prepared to accept that—one might consider 15 years appropriate to denote a link with a certain constituency. For those reasons, I have opted for 15 years.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In a spirit of generosity, I tabled an amendment specifying 10 years. On reflection, I was probably a little too generous. I am sure that the Minister will be grateful for that and will accept my amendment. Twenty-five years is excessive in the extreme. People who have been resident abroad, working abroad, earning money abroad and probably not paying taxes abroad are not likely to be interested in politics in this country. The Government's motive is to find a pool of voting fodder for the Tory party in the tax havens around the world.
      No doubt the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) will shortly be sent to the Cayman Islands to search out a few Tory votes. No doubt the Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), will be off to Marbella to look around tax exiles there, and hold a few cocktail parties on behalf of the Tory party. Those cocktail parties would not be subject to the election expenses limit because it does not apply to advertising for voters overseas, any more than advertising in various newspapers such as Le Monde, The Christian Science Monitor, or the international version of El Pais, or on Sky television or any other satellite system would be subject to election expenses.
      It is nonsense to enfranchise people who have lived abroad for 25 years. The Government should be concentrating on large numbers of people in this country who have been disfranchised because their landlords have chosen not to put them on the electoral register, because their local registration offices are so incompetent that they do not do their job efficiently, and because of insufficient canvassing and advertising about the need to register to vote.
      The proposal is that anyone who was born in this country can vote for as long as 25 years later. That means that a child who is born today, who gets a passport straight away and whose parents take him out of the country, will have a vote in British elections in 18 years' time and for a further seven years after that. That young person would have no conception of political life, or of what happens in this country. He would be given a vote, but he would not be expected to play any part in public or private life in this country. I believe that the clause is merely to enfranchise tax dodgers around the world. If there were any other motive behind the clause, the Government would be attempting to improve democracy in this country.
      The Government say that they are keen on promoting democracy. That is suspicious coming from a party that has introduced the poll tax, which has done more to discourage people from voting than anything else, and from a party that has done nothing to extend the franchise to those hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of
      414
      people across Europe who are legally resident in this country, are paying taxes in this country and are playing their part in community life, but who are denied the right to vote. They are denied, too, the right to vote in their own countries, because they are refugees or asylum seekers. We should be concentrating on improving democracy for people who live in this country and who contribute to this country rather than this curious—
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's concerns about improving democracy. Will he tell the House what contributions the Labour party proposes to make to improving democracy in Britain today?
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the debate will be confined to the amendments on the Paper.
      Mr. Corbyn: The amendment on the Paper is designed to limit the damage of the proposal. As I have said, I have been far too generous in proposing 10 years, and I chastise myself for that.
      As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) knows, if he bothers to read Labour party documents or anything else, we are concerned about democracy in the community, at work and in elections. That is why we intend to abolish the poll tax. We also support industrial democracy. Of course, I would be straying and trying your patience, Mr. Walker, if I went in that direction. The hon. Gentleman could have tabled his own amendments to the Bill. I notice that the Social and Liberal Democrats—if that is still his party's name—has not tabled any amendments, so I fail to see why its members are taking a holier than thou attitude in this debate. [Interruption.] Under my skin, not at all. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has an awful lot of problems under his skin, but one of them has nothing to do with me. The problem is the lack of support for his party and perhaps he should address himself to that.
      The Bill is not a method of improving democracy, but nothing more than a method of enfranchising people who play no part in the life of the country. They are not interested in democratic movements in this country, because they have set themselves up in some other country and earn their money there. My 10-year rule would allow those people who have working contracts abroad—for example, those in the diplomatic service—to maintain a link with this country. I believe that a period of 25 years is quite ridiculous and, therefore, I commend my amendment to the House.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is extraordinary to listen, on the one hand, to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) describing these people as tax dodgers and, on the other, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—speaking from the Opposition Front Bench saying that the Labour party is receiving increasing support from British citizens abroad. The hon. Member for Islington, North must in some way reconcile those two points of view. The abuse heaped on our citizens abroad is entirely unjustified. Many of them are Crown servants and local government employees who pay British tax deducted at source, and others are scarcely tax dodgers—otherwise, they would not live in countries where the tax rates are frequently higher than they are here.
      We have listened to a number of suggestions for different periods, but they have, of course, all been plucked

      415
      from the air—just as much my right hon. Friend the Minister's proposal of 25 years as those we have heard of 10, 15 and 20 years. The truth is that large numbers of people work abroad and maintain links with the United Kingdom regardless of how long they have been out of the country. I was especially struck when I was last in the middle east by a British sales representative of a company in my constituency who had been working there for 30 years. He had continued to take his local papers every week in order to keep a watch on what was going on in his home town.
      I am sure that many hon. Members have met people abroad who share that link with the home country. If there were to be any restriction, it would be more appropriate if it were related to those working overseas as opposed to those retired overseas, irrespective of the time limit. That is why I should prefer to see no limit.
      When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to this short debate, I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that, if representations are made about any unsatisfactory features of the system, the legislation can be reconsidered to ensure that we are not unjustifiably disfranchising many of our fellow citizens. We are in an era, I hope, of increasing internationalism, and what is good for the majority of the countries in the EC and other democracies should surely be good enough for us. The internationalism of the Labour party, which lasted until 15 June, has been represented by the hon. Member for Islington, North, when he categorised all our citizens abroad as tax dodgers. Incidentally, that is an improvement on what he said about them only the other day. I hope that that sort of sentiment will not be expressed again, because it is monstrously unjustified.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: It has sometimes been observed that as people grow older so they become more reactionary in their political views. It may be fairly observed of the Labour party that as it has grown older so it has become more reactionary. The debate has illustrated the falling off that has taken place in the radicalism of the Labour party. In the debates which have taken place so far on the Bill, it has sought to restrict the franchise of British citizens, having spent the first 50 years of its life trying to extend it. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is an example of just such an attempt.
      It is bizarre that, following the proposition that was introduced on Second Reading that there should be a property qualification or a tax connection with the United Kingdom—that was the argument of those on the Opposition Front Bench—it is now being argued that we should reduce the right of British citizens to vote in British general elections.
      Mr. Darling: On what basis does the hon. Gentleman make his remarks? At present, the franchise includes only those who are away for five years, and the amendment would increase that to 20 years, which is five years less than the period which the Government are proposing. I never suggested any property qualification or the qualification that the individual should pay taxes. That is not the right
      416
      basis on which anyone should be franchised. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say rather than speak on the basis of what he wished I had said.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by admitting that he had not been present on Second Reading. Had he been present, he would have heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) suggesting that there should be a tax nexus. He proposed that that should be the test to determine whether individuals were entitled to vote. The hon. Gentleman may not regard it as especially reactionary to seek to reduce the entitlement proposed by the Government from 25 years to 20 years, but I think most fair-minded people would regard that as a restriction of the franchise.
      The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) was right when he said that to pluck figures out of the air is wholly arbitrary. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central produced not one argument of substance to suggest that he had it any more right than the Government. At least the Home Seceretary had the grace to say that he was attracted to the idea of extending the franchise to citizens regardless of where they lived. In so doing, he reflected what I believe to be the common perception, that communications in the modern world are such that information about the country to which one belongs and of which one is a citizen is readily available regardless of residence.
      It is widely recognised also that the overwhelming majority of British citizens who lived abroad are not, as caricatured by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), layabouts, lacking in patriotism or sponging parasites of the societies in which they live. Instead, they are hard-working people who, in many cases, are serving the countries in which they live specifically and directly as civil servants or soldiers, or as members of the commercial world. The idea that these people should be deprived of their citizenship rights to vote because they are living abroad seems reactionary, and unworthy of a party which claims to be radical.
      I hope that the Government have not cooked up a deal with the Labour party over this measure, but I suspect that that is just what has happened. Having put forward the idea of 25 years in the Bill, I suspect that the Government will accept some slight adjustment in order to convey to the British people the idea that there is consensus on this matter. Let me disabuse them of that idea: there is no consensus. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West has made it plain that the true principle should be that of giving the citizen the right to vote, regardless of residence, proved connection and demonstrated patriotism. How many people in this country would survive a test of patriotism if such a test had to be applied before they were granted the right to vote?
      The Bill moves in the right direction, but not far enough. I wish that the Home Secretary had followed his first instincts, and conveyed the right to vote to all those who, by citizenship, enjoy British nationality.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Walker. On Second Reading I tried to protest about remarks made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who castigated all expatriate workers as the equivalent of Ronnie Biggs. Unfortunately, on that occasion, I failed to make my point, but I shall do so this evening, not only by

      417
      welcoming the Government's measure—it is unusual for me to speak in favour of a Government measure—but also by speaking against the various different chances—
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      Mr. Allason: I shall give way in a minute, when I have developed my point.
      I should like to speak against the various different chances for reducing the number of years from 25 to 10 or even 15. It is important that the figure should be 25, and I shall give the House an example of somebody who would be absolutely disfranchised.
      For example, an expatriate worker may go to live abroad, but just because, for lax purposes, he opts to become a non-resident in this country—that is, he spends a year and a day abroad and thereafter spends less than 90 days in this country—he will not pay tax in this country but, even though a non-resident, he will not necessarily be exempt from tax elsewhere. If he went to live in the United States, he would pay tax there.
      The argument of Labour Members seems to be one of double taxation. They seem to present all non-resident workers as tax dodgers, which is not the case.
      Mr. Corbyn: In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, (Mr. Banks), who is, I understand, abroad—not, I hasten to add, in some tax haven—he said that the measure would enfranchise Ronnie Biggs, which is perfectly true. He also said that it would enfranchise a large number of tax dodgers, which is perfectly true. He did not say, and neither have I ever ever said, that every British person who lives abroad is either a crook or a tax dodger. I want to place that on record, so that what was and was not said is clear.
      Mr. Allason: I am grateful to have that point clarified and I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West enjoys his stay abroad, wherever it may be, and does not have to pay any tax. However, while he is there he may well notice that, if the so-called tax haven is an island, the cost of living is substantially higher than that of this country, and even in a tax haven, he may be obliged to pay other sorts of taxes. In many countries where there is no income tax, for example, there is a very—
      The Chairman: Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman to come back more closely to the specific amendment before the Committee.
      Mr. Allason: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Walker.
      I speak in favour of the 25-year limit. It is a reasonable limit. Supposing an expatriate worker goes abroad and lives there. He may well retain a property in this country and come back here once every six months or so. He may let out the property. More importantly, even if he remains out of the country for 25 years, that does not mean that he will automatically become eligible to vote in his new country. Because children may retain their British nationality and their links with the United Kingdom and may be educated here, it is important that their parents have an opportunity to vote. They should not be disfranchised; they should be able to take part in the democratic system and to vote for a Government when that moment comes.
      418
      Accordingly, 25 years is a sensible period. It will mean that the children of someone who has taken work abroad will still have the chance to choose, so I commend the 25-year limit to the House.
      Mr. David Winnick: No one would want to remove the right to vote of a person who has gone abroad on a contract, or who serves in the armed forces or in the EEC. However, many of us oppose extending the time limit for those who have been away from this country for a long time, many of whom exhibit no commitment to return. Five years is the maximum permitted under the present law, and a declaration has to be signed. In it, the person states that he will return to the United Kingdom at some stage. This Bill would abolish that.
      I can see no justification for such an extension. As the Bill has been given a Second Reading, I shall support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), which provides for an extension to 10 years. As he said, perhaps, on reflection, he should have sought a smaller number of years, but I shall support his amendment as the best available option.
      I shall accept no lectures from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about being an anti-democrat. I am all in favour of democracy. Had I been around at the time, I, unlike some Conservative Members, would have fought to extend the right to vote and for other democratic reforms. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I require no lectures on defending our democracy. Far from defending our democracy, the Government proposal devalues it because it gives the vote to people who have lived away from this country for years on end, who have no commitment to it and who have no intention of paying tax here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, many of the children of parents who took them away and never returned will have the right to vote. I cannot see how that helps democracy.
      Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I know full well why the Government are proposing this change: they believe that it will bring them votes. If they thought otherwise, they would not suggest it. It is naive of the Liberals, or Democrats, to believe that the Government have any objective other than garnering as many votes as possible. It surprises me that there should be any illusions about that.
      The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North is better than the one tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and it deserves support.
      Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. When we began the debate on this group of amendments, you announced the selection of amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 7 for debate, but they were mentioned in the order of amendments Nos. 4, 1 and 7. I should like some guidance, because the amendments refer to different numbers of years-20, 15 and 10 years. Will there be an opportunity to vote on all three of them, so that the Committee has a say about all three options, or will you be selecting one for a vote, so that we do not vote on the other two?
      The Chairman: At the conclusion of the debate, I shall put the question that is before the Committee, which is that on amendment No. 4. If the Committee agree to that amendment, such a decision will relieve it of the necessity of voting on the other two amendments in the group.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I understand what you say. However, the selection list has amendment No. 1 down first, with amendments Nos. 4 and 7 after it. After my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) moved amendment No. 4, you asked the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to move amendment No. 1, and apologised to him for not calling him first.
      The Chairman: Order. I called the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) not to move his amendment, but to speak to it. It may have been an inadvertence on my part, but I failed to see the hon. Gentleman rising at the outset of the debate, so I called the hon. Member whom I saw rising, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). For that reason, it will be amendment No. 4 that 1 shall have, I hope soon, the opportunity to put to the Committee.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will let me deal with one point of order before she raises another.
      In the light of the decision that the Committee takes, we shall decide whether it is necessary to vote on any other amendments in the group.
      Mrs. Wise: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. It is not at all clear why you failed to call the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who tabled the first amendment in the group. Having apologised for failing to call him, you have implicitly admitted that the hon. Member was entitled to be called first. What is at stake is not simply the order of speeches but the right of the Committee to cast votes. Therefore, will you reconsider, as it was apparently an accident that you did not call amendment No. 4 first, and say that that should not be the determining factor as to whether we vote on amendment No. 4?
      The Chairman: The hon. Lady is getting dangerously near to debating my ruling, and I am not prepared to allow that. I have ruled, and I see no reason to change my ruling.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Our debate is not about something of minor significance. On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Bill would enfranchise up to 2 million people. We cannot decently decide who should have the vote on the principle of who will get political advantage from that vote. That is what is behind the Government's proposals, and I was disappointed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) who said, perhaps in a jocular way, that it was all right to enfranchise people living overseas because they would vote Labour. We should be extending the franchise only to those who have a legitimate right to that franchise, and who form part of the society that should have a say in the decisions of, and operate checks and balances over, its political representatives. Therefore, those who are resident here, have close links with us or are returning here, rather than detaching themselves from it, have a right to vote in it.
      Many people who live overseas may be worthy, although others will be tax dodgers, but that factor should not enter the argument. On the whole, people will increasingly associate themselves with the societies to which they have moved. They will read newspapers and watch television there and follow the careers of their
      420
      children, who will help to change their attitudes. They will become detached from our society, feeling a secondary rather than a direct sense of involvement with what is, to them, merely their country of origin. Many people here will, of course, adopt a similar attitude, but at least the social conditions which surround them will draw them increasingly into our society and justify their having the vote.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Does he not agree, however, that a British citizen's retention of his citizenship is an indication of his desire to retain the link that allows him to receive the protection of the British Government and to carry a British passport? Is not that in itself a more objective test than any other of the connection of people living abroad with this country?
      Mr. Barnes: Such people may wish to demonstate their link with this country. My argument, however, is that the way of life that they are leading abroad and the society that surrounds them will change their attitudes considerably, and that their connection with this country—their attachment to it—will become merely legalistic. In the past we have talked of extending the franchise to people who belong to our society—who are resident here, and who become increasingly involved in what happens here and what they wish to happen. Although the hon. Gentleman has a point, I think that it is countered by other factors.
      Before I gave way to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I was about to voice a considerable criticism of something that he has said. I take offence at the suggestion that some Opposition Members are not genuinely concerned about the legitimate extension of the franchise. I have presented a Bill to bring about the re-enfranchisement of the people, because I am especially concerned about the way in which the poll tax, because of the interconnection with the electoral register, will help to destroy the franchise.
      I have argued strongly for the extension and nurture of the franchise in this country. For instance, we spend a tiny amount on encouraging electoral registration. Last year Abbey National spent more than £6 million encouraging people to vote in one of its ballots, while the nation spent only £320,000 encouraging them to take up their franchise rights. That contrasts with the amount—more than £3,500,000—which could be spent for that purpose under the Bill.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the law of this country, everyone who is eligible to vote must be included on the electoral register? That is the responsibility of each householder, but hardly anyone—if anyone at all—is ever prosecuted for deliberately keeping people off the register. Should not the Government be attending to that problem?
      The Chairman: Order. I think that the Committee should get back to the amendments.
      Mr. Barnes: It is clear from what I have said that I support a move to include on the register as few overseas residents as possible—only those who have been in contact with this country recently. The initial five-year period established by the Representation of the People Act 1985 is, in my view, preferable to any of the current proposals. During consideration of the Bill in 1984, a seven-year

      421
      period was proposed, but there was a furore and a great debate—that Parliament concentrated on the issue much more closely than this one—and the Government made a concession, cutting it down to five years. They have now gaily advanced it to 25 years. I find 20 years better than 25, 15 better than 20, 10 better than 15, and five would be the best of all if we cannot return to what happened before 1984.
      Other consequences follow from a determination of the number of years that a child has to spend in this country to be enfranchised. That point will be dealt with later but it will be affected by the decision on this amendment. Someone who is now a babe in arms will be entitled to a vote at the age of 18, having lived all his life overseas and he will retain that right for seven years, although he may be voting in a constituency which did not exist when he was a babe in arms and he may know nothing about conditions in this country.
      Mr. Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that children who move abroad with their parents, or who were born abroad, may never have the right to vote in their parents' new country and may wish to retain their links with the United Kingdom? Their parents may return frequently to this country. If a limit of five or even 10 years were imposed, those children might be disfranchised.
      Mr. Barnes: We cannot determine who should be enfranchised in this country by means of any global idea of what the franchise arrangements should be. A child may be living in a country where there is no franchise, so even if he became a naturalised citizen of that country he could never exercise his franchise rights. We used to have a parliamentary democracy with decent checks and balances. We have to decide who can rightly be enfranchised. If we get it right, we shall then be able to argue that the principles that we adopt ought to be adopted by other countries.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: I apologise to the Committee for the fact that early on in the debate I was called out of the Chamber for five or 10 minutes. During that period I understand that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the Second Reading debate which touched on the amendments before the Committee. I understand that the hon. Gentleman repeated a point that he made during that debate—that I had said that Labour party policy is that people should have property before they are allowed to vote. That is completely contrary to our policy.
      During the Second Reading debate I said:
      "Does the Minister consider that, for many of the tax exiles"—
      the issue was tax exiles, in the context of the 25 years argument—
      "who have given up Britain to live overseas—there should be no representation without taxation? If these tax exiles pay tax they should, by right, have a vote. Does not the Minister agree that this is a reasonable criterion for extending the representation of these people?"—[Official Report, 29 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 1146.]
      The reason for making the point in that debate was that in 1985 the Minister advocated the same point. I was making a debating point rather than suggesting in any way that Labour party policy is that people should not have the vote if they do not own property. That would be quite absurd.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The basic proposition from which I start, and which I commend to the Committee, is that one should not deprive a British citizen of his vote unless there are very persuasive arguments to that effect. That must be especially true at a time when more and more people are working for longer and longer periods abroad in a multiplicity of jobs, many of them of direct benefit to this country. To say, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, that the Bill is designed to benefit tax dodgers, crooks, thieves and wastrels is to bring discredit only upon himself.
      I shall make two further points in support of the general proposition that I have advanced. First, while it may be true that the Bill would extend the franchise to a number of people who might be described as tax dodgers and perhaps thus unworthy, the fact that a number of unworthy people benefit from an extension of the franchise is not and can never be an argument against extending the franchise to the many more numerous people working abroad for wholly good reasons.
      Secondly, the Bill proposes a self-regulating mechanism. It is no good criticising the Bill on the grounds that it will extend the franchise to people who have no interest in voting. If they have no interest in voting, they will not apply to register.
      11 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: The Minister appears to be proposing a duality of standards, in that voter registration is compulsory for people living in Britain, but it will be optional to people living abroad who are offered the vote. Does the Minister agree that there is an inconsistency?
      Mr. Hogg: No. The approach that Parliament has always taken is not to impose obligations which are unenforceable. As we cannot enforce against persons living abroad an obligation to register, we cannot impose one to that effect.
      The House has to consider four possible time periods. The Bill provides for 25 years; amendment No. 4, moved by the Opposition, provides for 20 years; a further amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) provides for 15 years; and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, North provides for 10 years.
      Judged against the general proposition which I have set out, the amendments proposing 10 and 15 years are too short. Neither 10 nor 15 years would be appropriate, bearing in mind that the general principle must be that British citizens have the vote unless there is some jolly good reason to the contrary. That leaves a choice between 20 and 25 years. I am perfectly willing to concede that, in a sense, we are plucking figures out of the air, and it is difficult to say that there is a distinction of principle between 20 and 25 years. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has described his amendment No. 4, which proposes 20 years, as a sensible compromise. In electoral matters, there is much to be said for attracting as much support as possible around a particular proposal for change, and because of that I recommend to the Committee that amendment No. 4 be accepted.
      Mr. Winnick: I can assure the Minister that there will be a vote. Whatever concession he makes, it will not be

      423
      enough for some of us. Will he explain why the declaration is to be abolished? Although I would remain opposed to the Bill, if the declaration were retained, at least there would be some commitment which a person now has to sign to vote in a British general election. Will the Minister consider that at some stage? It is important, at least theoretically, that in signing a declaration, a person should be placed under some obligation that he intends to return to Britain at some stage.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is attentive but forgetful. He will recall that I dealt with that point when I replied to the Second Reading debate. We may not agree, but the declaration is unverifiable. There is no way in which an independent person can judge whether a person making the declaration is telling the truth. Therefore, it is intrinsically valueless. Because the law does not favour incorporating into statute law valueless requirements, I certainly would not commend the hon. Gentleman's proposition to the Committee.
      Mr. Winnick: The declaration was included by the Government. I recognise the shortcomings that the Minister just mentioned, but at least it places the person under an obligation of honesty. I have many reservations about the Bill, but bearing in mind that the declaration was included by the Government, what are the arguments for abolishing it?
      Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman had thought a little more clearly about his intervention, he would be aware of the reason. He referred to the declaration about honesty, which in effect says that the person has no intention of living permanently outside the United Kingdom. Nobody can answer that question with certainty one way or the other, because he must admit the possibility that he might change his mind. That being so, he cannot assert the declaration with a clear conscience. Because of that, and because it is unverifiable, I do not commend it to the Committee.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) received echoed support from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). In effect, my hon. Friend was asking whether we should reconsider the figure. The truth is that the Government would be content to accept a period of 20 years, against the background that I have outlined. We do not propose to bring further proposals before the House in the future. Clearly, if there were general, substantial support to extend the franchise, we should have to reconsider the matter. At present, I commend amendment No. 4 to the Committee.
      Mr. Maclennan: I predicted that there would be collusion between the Front Benches. As on so many other matters, they have joined in reaction and lack of principle. The Minister could not embellish the lack of principle of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who adduced no argument of substance, or indeed any argument, for advocating 20 years as the appropriate time. Even with his more inventive mind, the Minister could not produce an argument of substance.
      Not only the Committee but the country will note that collusion and lack of principle and the rejection of the powerful arguments of Conservative Members. It will be
      424
      noted how the Government and the Opposition have been prepared to cut down the proposed right to extend the franchise to British citizens regardless of where they live and work. It is a sad commentary on the way in which Parliament operates.
      Question put, That the amendment be made;—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 27.

      Division No. 282]

      [11.07 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Allason, Rupert

      Jackson, Robert

      Arbuthnot, James

      Janman, Tim

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Atkins, Robert

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kilfedder, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Boswell, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knowles, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Latham, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Burt, Alistair

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Butcher, John

      Lightbown, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lilley, Peter

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Carttiss, Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Chapman, Sydney

      Maclean, David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cran, James

      Mans, Keith

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Curry, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Darling, Alistair

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

      Meale, Alan

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Day, Stephen

      Mills, Iain

      Devlin, Tim

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dewar, Donald

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Dixon, Don

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Neubert, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Durant, Tony

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fallon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Favell, Tony

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Portillo, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Forth, Eric

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Foster, Derek

      Randall, Stuart

      Franks, Cecil

      Redwood, John

      Freeman, Roger

      Riddick, Graham

      French, Douglas

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Gill, Christopher

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Gow, Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Speller, Tony

      Gregory, Conal

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Stern, Michael

      Hague, William

      Stevens, Lewis

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

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

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Sumberg, David

      Haynes, Frank

      Summerson, Hugo

      Heddle, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

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

      Thurnham, Peter

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Vaz, Keith

      Hunter, Andrew

      Waller, Gary

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Irvine, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      425

      Warren, Kenneth

      Wood, Timothy

      Watts, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Wheeler, John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Alton, David

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Beith, A. J.

      Nellist, Dave

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Pike, Peter L.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Clay, Bob

      Wallace, James

      Cryer, Bob

      Winnick, David

      Gordon, Mildred

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Howells, Geraint

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Livsey, Richard

      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

      Loyden, Eddie

      Mr. Harry Barnes.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Tony Benn: As a result of the way in which the amendments have been called—and I make no criticism—the only way in which an alternative view can be expressed is by speaking against clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
      I am one of those—and there must be others—who are anxious when the two Front Benches agree because the usual channels can become too easy a form of contact. However, when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) speaks about democracy, it is right to put it on record that he was elected as a Labour candidate in the 1979 election and that the ballot paper said "Labour". When the hon. Gentleman deserted the Labour party, he tore up every ballot that was cast for him and served under another label for the rest of that Parliament. Therefore, I do not find it easy to take lectures from him on the subject of ballots.
      However, I want to make the more substantial point that our parliamentary system rests on a constituency basis. We refer to, for example, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, or to the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Finchley or whatever the constituency may be. Under this arrangement it is possible that several constituencies in which there is a narrow vote one way or the other might elect their Members of Parliament on the votes of those who have not lived in this country for 20 years. That is a substantial change.
      When the franchise was extended in the 19th century, the concept of passports did not exist. The only meaning of "citizenship" was where one lived and worked. We are now departing from that. There are millions of people who create the wealth in this country and who have no vote but, as one Conservative Member has said, if one holds property here, one is entitled to vote. By making this change, we are shifting the idea of citizenship from those who have a commitment to the future of the country because they live and work here, to those who have property in this country but who live and work elsewhere. That is a substantial change.
      426
      The poll tax has altered the basis of the vote because everybody who is on the register will be pursued for the poll tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Community charge"] Those who live abroad will not be pursued for the poll tax. Indeed, it is called the poll tax because it is a tax attaching to those who are on the register—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know that there will be others who pay the poll tax who will not be on the register, but nobody on the register will be able to escape the poll tax. Of course, people such as foreign residents living here will pay the poll tax.
      Finally, the 20-year rule is retrospective. What about young people of 16 who pay taxation, who are at work and who have an interest in the next 20 years in this country because they live here, but who are not to be enfranchised?
      I do not know whether the House will seek to proceed to another Division, but for those reasons, in my speech and in my voice, I wish to register my opposition to clause 1 standing part of the Bill. This is a big change and the fact that an agreement has been reached between the two Front Benches should not recommend itself to those who see the basis of our vote as constituency representation. Those who live and work in a constituency should have primacy in electoral representation over those who live abroad for whatever reasons. I make no charge against those who live abroad because they may have good reason to do so—but they have no direct commitment to, nor do they create wealth in, the society where they claim that they should have a vote.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is true that the parliamentary system rests on a constituency basis. It is also true that by "democracy" we mean extending the franchise to adult citizens. Sometimes those things can come into conflict. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) takes a narrow view in saying that people living overseas should not have a vote in a constituency where they have not resided for some time. That is incompatible with the view of a democratic society that I am putting forward. Because of that approach and that difference in interpretation, I advise the Committee to reject what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
      Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 16.

      Division No. 283]

      [11.23 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Cran, James

      Allason, Rupert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Alton, David

      Curry, David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Darling, Alistair

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

      Atkins, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Beith, A. J.

      Day, Stephen

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Devlin, Tim

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dewar, Donald

      Boswell, Tim

      Dixon, Don

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dorrell, Stephen

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

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Dover, Den

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Durant, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Fallon, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Favell, Tony

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Forman, Nigel

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forth, Eric

      Carttiss, Michael

      Foster, Derek

      Chapman, Sydney

      Franks, Cecil

      Chope, Christopher

      Freeman, Roger

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      French, Douglas

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      427

      Gill, Christopher

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Gow, Ian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Neubert, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hague, William

      Paice, James

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Pike, Peter L.

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

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Portillo, Michael

      Haynes, Frank

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hind, Kenneth

      Randall, Stuart

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Redwood, John

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

      Riddick, Graham

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Howells, Geraint

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Irvine, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Jack, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Jackson, Robert

      Stern, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Stevens, Lewis

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Kilfedder, James

      Sumberg, David

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Knapman, Roger

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Knowles, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Latham, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lightbown, David

      Wallace, James

      Lilley, Peter

      Waller, Gary

      Livsey, Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Maclean, David

      Watts, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wheeler, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Widdecombe, Ann

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Malins, Humfrey

      Yeo, Tim

      Mans, Keith

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

      Mills, Iain

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Clay, Bob

      Spearing, Nigel

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Vaz, Keith

      Gordon, Mildred

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Meale, Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Nellist, Dave

      Mr. Harry Barnes.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      EXTENSION TO THOSE NOT PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED IN UNITED KINGDOM BECAUSE OF AGE
      11.30 pm
      The Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert 'fifteen'.
      Mr. Waller: In the light of the reasonable decision on amendment No. 4, and because this amendment is closely related to it and it would be illogical to have a different figure, I do not seek to move the amendment.
      The Chairman: In that case, I call upon the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to move the next amendment in the group.
      Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert 'twenty'.
      The Chairman: With this, we will take the rest of the amendments in this group: No. 8 in, page 1, line 16, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert 'ten'.
      No. 3, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert `fifteen'.
      No. 6, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert `twenty'.
      No. 9, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'twenty-five' and insert `ten'.
      Mr. Darling: I make no bones about it, the 20 years is a compromise. When speaking of compromises, I must say that I was surprised to meet the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in the Lobby a few moments ago. After his outburst, in which he was almost moved to tears, about the principle of the franchise, and the shame that he felt had been brought upon democracy in the House, it was surprising to discover him in the same Lobby as I and some of my hon. Friends.
      Having accepted the figure of 20 years in clause 1, it is obviously logical to accept the same figure in clause 2.
      I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and other hon. Members that it is absolutely wrong, and that, if one goes abroad, one loses all touch and, therefore, all right to vote in one's constituency. I have in mind one of my constituents who lived and voted in my constituency for a number of years. He went to work for the EC, initially for five years, and under the existing legislation was entitled to vote. As he is now going to do a further stint of five years, I do not see why he should be disfranchised in a separate election. And I am not just influenced in that. I am more than satisfied with the way in which he casts his vote. It is difficult to see why he should be disfranchised. As the mobility of labour increases and people go to work in Europe and other parts of the world, I do not believe that there is a strong principle that one must restrict the franchise to those who are resident within a constituency at any one time.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Darling: I will not give way, because I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman really wants to speak, he will have little difficulty in catching the Chairman's eye.
      On that basis, I trust that the amendment will be accepted, compromise or not.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has moved amendment No. 5 and I believe that he was also speaking to amendment No. 6. At the risk of being accused by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) of being a party to a collusion and for the reasons that I outlined in my remarks in the last but one debate, I commend amendment No. 5 to the Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 2, line 6, leave out `twenty-five' and insert 'twenty'.
      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      The Chairman: With the leave of the House, may I put together clauses 3 to '8?
      Mr. Benn: No.
      Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      INCREASE OF LIMITS ON EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES AT PARLIAMENTARY BY-ELECTIONS
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Benn: The clause introduces an anomaly into the control of election expenses that is completely unjustifiable and inexplicable. The Committee is being invited to say that substantially larger sums of money can be spent in by-elections than can be spent in general elections. Whatever the appropriate figure—I shall not argue what the figure should be—hon. Members are elected under the same rules, whether they are elected in a general election or a by-election. The idea that a by-election should entitle the parties to spend more than in a general election can be justified only on the basis that they already spend much more than they should in by-elections. At least, it has been widely reported that in by-elections the expenditure exceeds the legal limit.
      I speak with some feeling on the matter as I have fought 15 elections as a parliamentary candidate, including four by-elections. I got in at a by-election, I was slung out at a by-election, I got back in at a by-election, and when my constituency was abolished in 1983 I got in again afterwards at a by-election. What is so highly undesirable about the great media circus in a by-election is that it means that a by-election is treated differently from a general election. Seventeen candidates stood at Chesterfield in 1984, and it was a media circus. There were 25 film units in the constituency for a month. All the hotels for miles around were booked by the various journalists who covered the by-election. If there are limits of any sort or kind, they should apply to everyone, whether they are involved in a general election or a by-election.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The number of candidates in the 1984 by-election at Chesterfield took the record away from my constituency when I was elected. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the reality in his by-election, as in others, was that more was spent by all the parties than the electoral limit? I suggest that that includes his own election and his own party.
      Mr. Benn: I am not asking the House to go into that. I have said that it is widely accepted that the limit is exceeded. If the House passes a law, finds that it is
      430
      disregarded and then makes an exception of the occasions when it is disregarded, that is not a satisfactory legislative procedure. I do not know, but it may well be that in some instances the limit is exceeded in general elections. Indeed, I had to appear before an electoral court in 1964, when it was alleged that I had spent more than in fact I had. I think that my agent put down many things under the head of election expenses—that is not uncommon—and as a result accidentally exceeded the limit. I do not think that we spent anything like the total sum recorded. However, I had the unpleasant experience of appearing before an election court and having to ask to be excused.
      I am saying that if the House thinks that the limit is unreasonable, it should raise the limit, but we should not introduce a distinction between by-elections and general elections.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: It seems that the by-election limit is unenforceable when national interest is focused on one constituency. That is never the position during a general election. I assume that that is the practical reason for the proposal set out in the clause.
      Mr. Benn: The principle of unenforceability is based on the assumption that everyone is doing it, that no one wants to reveal that anyone else is doing it, and that it is believed that the limit should be raised. Perhaps even the proposed new limit would not cover some of the expenditures that are undertaken.
      I do not believe that media by-elections perform any service in a parliamentary democracy. The media take over, but they have little to do with the constituencies where the by-elections occur. The journalists who pour into an area for a by-election have no interest in the locality where the election is taking place. Their purpose is to use the election as a test of opinion in a general election. For example, Peter Snow, on "Newsnight", examined a swing in a ward in Chesterfield and predicted an SDP Government in a general election.
      Pollsters make a living out of these occasions. Vincent Hanna came to Chesterfield during the by-election and went to a ward where there had been an unhappy withdrawal of a candidate for personal reasons. He stood outside the polling station and said, "There has been a withdrawal because Mr. Benn has been selected as the Labour party's parliamentary candidate." His interest had nothing to do with the people in the area, and I do not think that that does Parliament any good.
      I know that the Lobby makes a living out of by-elections, as do pollsters, but that is not necessarily a good thing. I say this with some feeling, because the party of which I am a member has already interpreted the arguments that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) advanced as a justification for saying, where there is a by-election, "We had better impose a candidate or retain the right to do so." That is not a good thing either, and that is a view that I have expressed both internally and externally. Candidates are there to represent the constituencies that choose them.
      I am opposed to proportional representation in some forms because it would involve a list system. That would mean—
      The Chairman: Order. There is nothing about proportional representation in the clause. I hope that we can stick to the subject of the clause.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Benn: I am not wasting the time of the Committee but making the serious point that by-elections are the same as general elections because they are designed to fill vacancies. Once we say that a by-election is different, not only do we give more leeway for expenditure, but we begin to argue that the candidates should be chosen in a different way. Similarly, the list system would destroy the link between candidates and the locality that they represent.
      These are not party matters. The Representation of the People Bill is generally accepted as a parliamentary matter which, in certain circumstances, might even go to a Speaker's Conference. I hope, therefore, that the House will not regard this as a narrow point of party advantage. The time has come for us to restate certain principles: candidates are chosen by the localities which have a chance to vote for them; when they stand as candidates they are all subject to indentical rules on expenditure; political parties, candidates and everyone else should discourage the media circus which brings Parliament into contempt.
      I am opposed to a high deposit. I believe that it would be better to have nominations, so that the measure of support can be seen. I fought 17 candidates, some of whom were wholly frivolous in character. One man stood with the slogan, "Buy your Chesterfield couch in Thame". That was an advertising gimmick. By paying his deposit he received a free post to everyone in the constituency. That is not the way in which Parliament should organise elections, whether by-elections or general elections.
      I hope that the House will consider my point seriously and not make the change, as once it is made the argument for raising the level for all expenditure to the by-election limit will become unanswerable. It will then be argued again that by-elections are special and the level will be raised once more.
      One of the most important characteristics of parliamentary democracy in this country, compared with congressional elections in America, is that in the United States they spend millions and millions of dollars promoting candidates. Only wealthy people or those with massive support can stand for Congress, which is moving away from the idea upon which the franchise was founded —the principle that anyone should be able to stand for Parliament and manage a campaign without being outpaced by those whose purses are longer.
      I seriously urge the House not to accept the clause, and I hope that you, Mr. Walker, understand that when I make these points I do so with considerable sincerity and a great deal of experience of by-elections and parliamentary elections.
      Sir Hal Miller: While I do not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) down all his favourite paths, I have considerable sympathy with his views on by-election expenses. I was responsible for running a large number of by-elections, and I was concerned about the reported levels of expenditure. However, I did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman's dissertation why, just because the media descend on a locality, it should be necessary for the candidates to spend more money. I have not seen that connection. My experience was that some of the minority parties regarded these occasions as a wonderful
      432
      opportunity for the band wagon to roll and undertook considerable expenditure, to which, perhaps, other parties might want to respond in some lesser degree.
      I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should think most seriously before creating a different category of expenditure for these occasions. I shall listen closely to the Minister's argument as to why we should support this clause, because I find it offensive, both in principle and as a matter of practicality. I have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions that we are running the grave risk of increasing expenditure limits for all elections and opening an undesirable door. I shall listen closely to the Minister's justification of why, merely because there is so much media attention, it is necessary for the candidates to spend more money.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The debate is worth while because it requires the Government to explain the reasons for their proposals. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Several issues are at stake here.
      First, by countenancing much higher expenditure, are we disadvantaging certain parties' or candidates' chances of electoral success? In an age of advertising, those with a lot of money will spend to the maximum and do better in an election than people who have less.
      Secondly, when a vacancy for a seat occurs, the by-election campaign to win it begins within days. If the seat becomes vacant due to a resignation, it begins immediately; if due to a death, after a decent interval.
      Sir Hal Miller: It depends how you define decent.
      Mr. Hughes: I agree.
      Sometimes, a long time may elapse before the election. By-elections are not like general elections, for which, thank goodness, there are short campaigns. Campaigns can take months. I cannot understand how we can expect the same amount of money to be spent on a two-week campaign as on a campaign lasting four, five or six months. The longer the campaign, the more money will be spent.
      Thirdly, I presume that the Government's argument is based on practicality, not principle. I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that the reason for the Government's proposal is their belief that the rules have long since been ignored. If that is so, it is illogical to distinguish between the levels of expenditure, given that a general election is an election of 650 Members, constituency by constituency, not an election by a list system for parties. If, as the thin end of the wedge, we are now introducing proposals affecting by-elections, there is no reason in principle why the same election expenses should not apply in general elections.
      If so, we must deal with the whole subject of general election expenses. The greatest distortion at these elections is to be seen in the different amounts spent nationally by the various parties; they affect the result far more than the moneys spent supporting local candidates.
      It is unprincipled to argue for this partial change without addressing the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I do not complain on behalf of myself or my colleagues, but other even smaller parties find it difficult to take on the party of Government, with all the

      433
      machinery and money that it can bring to bear—or to take on the Labour party, backed as it is by the unions, which invest massively in general election expenses.
      I fear that this unprincipled proposal will not last long; it has no real justification and it is being introduced as a matter of temporary expediency.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: I cannot see how this measure will work in practice, because there is an exemption from election expenses—regular newspapers, which can say what they like, promote candidates, endorse them editorially and so on. It is not beyond the wit of political parties to produce newsletters. We have seen them in by-elections; the name of Focus comes to mind. They can be produced daily or even hourly throughout the campaign.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Not quite.
      Mr. Jones: I appreciate the difficulties of manpower. However, the newspapers can be produced regularly and can be used to get around the expenditure limits without too much difficulty.
      Mr. Corbyn: I apologise for missing part of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) because I was delayed outside on urgent business. I am sure that he will forgive me.
      I had tabled some amendments to clause 6, which were not selected, so it is clear that I have several objections to it. The first is the complete nonsense that the by-election expenses limit should be set high because by-election expenses are higher. Paper, petrol, telephone calls and all the other such factors do not cost any more. The only difference is that the massive interest in by-elections makes them into a media circus, with the local electorate being made into mere spectators in what should be their election campaign. The cost of all that leads the parties to believe that they should have an increased limit to meet the interests of the media.
      If this provision goes through, I suspect that the next proposal will be to increase the limit for each parliamentary election by a similar amount. Once the precedent has been set in the by-elections, people will logically ask why, if this amount of £14,000 plus 16p per elector can be spent in by-elections, it should not be spent in general elections. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said—I caught the end of his speech—we are then into the American situation, where those who spend the most win.
      I agree that there is a case for increasing the expenses limit, and it should be increased regularly. However, I suggest that it should be uprated annually as the new register comes into force on 16 February each year. That would make the expenses limit open and clear in advance of the electoral year. I see nothing wrong with that. At least we would know where we are going, and would do so with an agreed figure.
      There is also an omission from clause 6. It should abolish the electoral deposit and introduce instead a requirement to submit large numbers of names as a demonstration of political support. That would be better than the present system, which shows only the ability to pay one's way to get on the ballot paper, and would be more democratic. This is a bad Bill, and clause 6 is particularly bad, so I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is a certain tension between the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who spoke first to the clause on behalf of the Opposition, and welcomed it. The clause is justified for three reasons. The first is that the plain fact of life is that the by-election becomes the focus of national political interest. It is a partial view to describe it a focus for media interest. It is, but it is also a focus for political interest, and politicians go to by-elections in great numbers. One of the difficult questions is the extent of the expenditure attributable to those visiting politicians that should be recorded in the electoral expenses. There was a day, quite a long time ago, when Labour candidates were pleased to have the right hon. Member for Chesterfield support them at a by-election. I should be interested to know how often his travelling expenses were shown in the candidates' expenses.
      Mr. Benn: The Minister is making a cheap point that may entertain his colleagues, but he is missing the point that I made. He is saying that the limit is exceeded, although he knows—as everyone knows—that the agent makes a statutory declaration. He has said that the law is disregarded, and that we all know that it is disregarded. He also made a comment about my travelling expenses, or anyone else's for that matter.
      The hon. Gentleman is a Minister responsible for upholding the laws passed by Parliament. He has now told the House that those laws are disregarded, and I should like him to clarify that. Is he saying that the limit is being increased because the statutory declarations made by the parties in recent by-elections have, in the Government's view, been false? If that is his argument let us consider it on that basis, but it is a serious matter for a Government to say, "We know that the law is being broken, so we are going to change it."
      12 midnight
      Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is not rising to the occasion; nor is he focusing on the issue. The issue is this: by-elections are of considerable political importance. As a consequence, the parties, often for a prolonged period—I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about this—pour a large amount of resources into the constituency. Those resources frequently take the form of speakers of high renown, such as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
      It is important to remember that only the courts can clarify which expenses are properly recordable and which are not. This is a seriously grey area. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's expenses, incurred when he is travelling to a by-election, should, in law, be incurred; generally the view has been taken that such expenses are not properly recordable, but I can envisage circumstances in which the courts would take a different view.
      Because of the volume of effort put into particular by-elections, candidates' expenses may be very close to the ceiling. If the courts were to take an adverse view—a view inconsistent with the practice of 30 years or more—individual candidates and agents could find themselves seriously at risk. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will know the nature of that risk better than most: it involves disqualification from membership of the House,

      435
      with the possibility of a fine and imprisonment. That cannot be right, and the House has a duty to remedy such grey areas.
      The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will, I trust, bear in mind that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it plain that we shall re-examine the whole question of expenses. As an interim measure, however, the Committee is considering this clause, which has the general support of hon. Members.
      Mr. Alan Meale: This is very interesting. Is the Minister saying that, if the clause is passed, the expenses of all parliamentarians visiting by-elections will have to be submitted?
      Mr. Hogg: I am not saying that. I am saying that the items of expenditure which are properly recordable are not defined exactly in law. Consequently, there is uncertainty about whether—I cite this merely as an example—the expenses of a visiting politician should be recordable.
      Clearly, in a number of cases, if all the expenses of politicians visiting by-elections had been recorded, it might well have transpired that the limits had been exceeded. I do not believe that anyone present would wish to deny an individual candidate the opportunity to attract the right hon. Member for Chesterfield; indeed, the Conservative party would be delighted if he appeared at every by-election in which a Labour candidate was participating. However, we do no want to put candidates at risk, and I cannot believe that hon. Members wish to put candidates at risk. It is on that basis that I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Cecil Franks: I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend, but with the greatest respect I feel that he has made a spurious point. There is no difference between a visiting parliamentarian and any single constituent who chooses to travel from his home to wherever the particular constituency party or association sends him and who uses his car or public transport to get there. Although in theory my hon. Friend is right that the courts could decide that any money spent on transport for the purpose of assisting at a by-election should be recorded, to do so would be fatuous because it would be so totally impracticable. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is possible to draw a distinction between visiting parliamentarians and those who assist at by-elections.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is making my point. He says, quite rightly, that it is difficult to draw a distinction between a visiting parliamentarian and a large number of volunteers. He went on to say that in theory the courts could hold those expenses to be recordable. So they could. That is the problem. In a by-election, not only do prominent politicians come forward to support a particular candidate but very frequently, because it is part of our democratic procedures, a very large number of volunteers come forward, too. They incur expenses of many kinds. I can envisage courts taking the view that those expenses should be recordable. There is no point in saying that the matter will not be raised. I most certainly foresee the time when a number of minority parties that are not represented in this place at the moment may seek to raise the issue.
      Sir Hal Miller: I realise that the Minister has to walk delicately, but unfortunately this clause has taken the cork out of the bottle. We are now having to discuss in the open matters which previously we preferred not to discuss. I have very considerable experience of these matters. Of course there is a grey area, as the Minister has just reminded us, but the Bill does not clarify that grey area in any way. Whereas it could previously be said that the current limitation on expenses acted as a brake on expenditure, the Minister is now lifting his foot off the brake and encouraging a great deal more expenditure.
      It would help the Committee if, without it being too difficult for him, he could say why the new suggested limit is thought to be appropriate. According to a rough calculation, it would amount to about £26,000 in my constituency. That is a very considerable sum of money, but we have been given no clear idea of what expenses a sum of money of that magnitude would be expected to cover. I ask the Minister to help us, because it is a matter of some principle.
      Mr. Hogg: Of course it is a matter of some importance, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it, but he will forgive me, I hope, if I say that he does me less than justice. He will bear in mind that I have already said that this is only an interim measure. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made plain in his Second Reading speech and in a parliamentary answer, we are proposing, after discussions between the parties, to embark upon consultations as to expenses across the board.
      The new clause is designed not to settle the position finally, but merely to protect it until that process of consultation is complete and it is possible to implement the product of that consultation process. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) also asked how the new figures had been reached. There is nothing magic about that. They were the result of consultations between interested parties. As I say that, I fear that I shall be accused of collusion.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is certainly trying to be helpful and I welcome that. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) said, we are all treading carefully, wary about what might appear from the bottle when it is uncorked. No doubt we all rely on our agents to deal with these matters and happily claim ignorance. That would apply to both sides of the House. I wish to ask the Minister two specific questions. First, can he give an estimate of the current expenditure in each of the by-elections? Secondly, as the Home Office must have done some work on this, can the Minister estimate the current expenditure by constituency in the last general election? If we are to have change before the next general election, that is relevant to the interim and final proposals.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman flatters me. I cannot answer either question without notice and I shall reply to him in writing.
      Mr. Benn: Can the Minister help me on three points? Alternative amendments would have clarified the issue around which he built his case. If the Bill said that in considering election expenses, the travelling expenses of speakers visiting constituencies were to be excluded, that would have clarified a matter on which the Minister said the courts had not made judgment. It would have been a permissible amendment.

      437
      The second point that the Minister omits is that, in general elections, circuses of party leaders travel around and Members of Parliament visit other constituencies. I have no idea how those expenses are carried, but I represented a big city for 33 years, and at every election Mr. Attlee, Mr. Gaitskell or Mr. Wilson would visit, and presumably the expenses were quite substantial. There is no argument whatever in respect of those constituencies that attract major party leaders to differentiate a by-election from a general election.
      Finally, the Minister said that the new clause is the result of informal consultations, which has been a characteristic of the Bill's consideration in Committee. If consultations are to take place—and must take place, because we have raised a subject that most right hon. and hon. Members do not discuss often—there is no reason why the provision should be in the Bill. Another Bill should be produced quite quickly, clarifying what is an election expense on the basis that general elections and by-elections are the same. With great respect to the Minister, who has not addressed the points that I have raised, this is not the right clause for the Bill and it should not have been included on the basis that the Bill happened to be before the House on quite another matter to provide a special exception for by-elections which generally do not contribute much to a public respect for parliamentary democracy.
      Mr. Hogg: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his intervention does not go to the root of the matter. It is perfectly true that the travelling expenses of visiting politicians are excluded from recordable expense. But the right hon. Gentleman is not focusing on the fact that there are a whole variety of expenses which are in doubt. I gave one example—travelling expenses—but there are many others. The point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is particularly important. At what point in the range of expenditure do expenses become recordable? Is it on the adoption of the candidate, or at some prior date? The point that I am making to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is that a range of difficult questions must be addressed. For that reason, we propose to proceed by public consultation, and clause 6 is designed to protect the position pending the conclusion of that consultation.
      The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will know that on consultation we seek to move ahead with as much agreement as can reasonably be achieved. In the Bill, we have tried to identify at least two prior issues of high priority—expenses and the extended franchise. On that basis, only two elements are in the Bill.
      12.15 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: I have much sympathy with the Government's purpose, which they declared on Second Reading, for this interim measure. As the Minister spoke, I became more concerned about what will be the longer-term solution to the problem.
      Given the attendance tonight, it is clear that hon. Members take an interest in the subject. The Secretary of State is to initiate a process of public consultation. Has consideration been given to what I believe is quite normal in such matters—the setting up of a Speaker's Conference, and without delay, because this is pre-eminently a House of Commons matter? It seems to me that the Government should not necessarily take the lead in organizing
      438
      consultation. I hope that the Minister will say whether he has considered that and whether he would look favourably on it.
      Mr. Hogg: The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is yes, consideration has been given to the proposal that he made. It has been thought best to proceed in the way that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined on Second Reading, which is the approach that I commend.
      Mr. Benn: I listened carefully to the Minister, but I am wholly unpersuaded. Like every hon. Member, I have had to sign the statutory declaration, which is a solemn thing to have to do. Not only the agent but the Member must sign it and, as the Minister rightly said, when the hon. Member signs it he runs the risk of getting into difficulties with disqualification, punishment or, so far as I know, imprisonment. On a technicality, I once had to ask for relief from election courts, so I am speaking with some feeling.
      The proper way to deal with the matter is to clarify what is an election expense. If people help by driving their cars around a constituency, it must be decided whether such expenditure should be included. If it is, one is faced with the impossible task of deciding who travelled where to take people to the polls. Without doubt, that should not be included. Expenditure incurred when people visit a constituency should not be included, although clearly there would have to be consultation.
      The issue, surely, is the definition of an election expense and the proper limit. My understanding of the reason for a limit is to stop an enormous sum of money being spent not on bringing in visiting speakers but on influencing people by mass propaganda, which gives an advantage to those who have the longest purses. For all those reasons, I shall oppose clause 6 in the Lobby, not because I do not want the matter to be taken seriously and urgently but because the Government have come to a shoddy way of tackling a problem that is of legitimate concern to the public and to hon. Members who are required to make statutory declarations.
      Some Members die unexpectedly. When a prospective candidate is adopted as a candidate, he will not know whether he will fight a general election or a by-election. Just after a general election, there is always a wave of by-elections. First, there is the general election expenditure and, if the freshly elected Member goes to the House of Lords or the EEC, there is a by-election and immediately the expenditure increases—at a time when the turnout usually decreases.
      I ask the Minister to consider this matter. I will seek to divide the Committee. This is not a matter that just needs discussions between the national agents of the two parties. It requires public scrutiny and discussion and a clear statement of the principles upon which the law is to be founded, followed by enforcement of the law so that people do not apparently disregard it.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 13.

      Division No. 284]

      [12.20 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Alton, David

      Allason, Rupert

      Arbuthnot, James

      439

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Janman, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Boswell, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Latham, Michael

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

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Burns, Simon

      Lightbown, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Lilley, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Maclean, David

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Chapman, Sydney

      Mans, Keith

      Chope, Christopher

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Cran, James

      Mills, Iain

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Curry, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Darling, Alistair

      Moss, Malcolm

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

      Neubert, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Devlin, Tim

      Norris, Steve

      Dewar, Donald

      Paice, James

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Portillo, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Durant, Tony

      Redwood, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Favell, Tony

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Forman, Nigel

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Forth, Eric

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Foster, Derek

      Stern, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Stevens, Lewis

      French, Douglas

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Gill, Christopher

      Sumberg, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Summerson, Hugo

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Gow, Ian

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Gregory, Conal

      Thurnham, Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hague, William

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Wallace, James

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Waller, Gary

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Watts, John

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

      Wheeler, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Howells, Geraint

      Wood, Timothy

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Yeo, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Irvine, Michael

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Jack, Michael

      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

      Jackson, Robert

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Spearing, Nigel

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Vaz, Keith

      Cryer, Bob

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Meale, Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Mr. Tony Benn and

      Nellist, Dave

      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 14.

      Division No. 285]

      [12.32 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Allason, Rupert

      Jackson, Robert

      Alton, David

      Janman, Tim

      Arbuthnot, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Atkins, Robert

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Beith, A. J.

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Knapman, Roger

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Latham, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

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

      Lightbown, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Lilley, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Maclean, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Maclennan, Robert

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Carrington, Matthew

      Mans, Keith

      Carttiss, Michael

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Chope, Christopher

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Mills, Iain

      Cran, James

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Curry, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Darling, Alistair

      Neubert, Michael

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Day, Stephen

      Norris, Steve

      Devlin, Tim

      Paice, James

      Dewar, Donald

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Portillo, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Dover, Den

      Redwood, John

      Durant, Tony

      Riddick, Graham

      Fallon, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Favell, Tony

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Forman, Nigel

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Forth, Eric

      Stern, Michael

      Foster, Derek

      Stevens, Lewis

      Franks, Cecil

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Freeman, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      French, Douglas

      Sumberg, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Summerson, Hugo

      Gill, Christopher

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Gow, Ian

      Thurnham, Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Gregory, Conal

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Wallace, James

      Hague, William

      Waller, Gary

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Watts, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Wheeler, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Wood, Timothy

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Yeo, Tim

      Howells, Geraint

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Irvine, Michael

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Meale, Alan

      Cryer, Bob

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Nellist, Dave

      Loyden, Eddie

      Primarolo, Dawn

      441

      Skinner, Dennis

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mr. Harry Barnes and

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

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

PETITIONS

  National Health Service Reform
  12.42 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I wish to present a petition which reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled,
  The Humble Petition of patients of a general practitioner's in Pontefract, showeth
  The patients of the practice, believe that the Health Service as it exists outside the private sector is under threat and could collapse.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to withdraw the White Paper "Working for Patients"
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  The petition is signed by 1,800 people, and it has my full support.
  To lie upon the Table.

Community Charge
12.43 am
Mr. George J. Buckley: I present a petition on behalf of my constituents about the injustice and hardship that the introduction of the poll tax will cause. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of South Kirkby, Pontefract.
That we draw to the attention of the House of Commons that the introduction of the poll tax will cause unnecessary
442
hardship on people living in Low Rated Houses owned or rented, this iniquitous tax will hit many people on low income many in my area who have served the Country in the Armed Forces during the 1939/45 war and many who have worked a lifetime down the coal mines. We feel that not only will the Poll Tax have immediate effect of hardship on these people when it is introduced, but will have a more serious effect when the transitional period is over.
Wherefore our petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to bring in amendment to this Legislation to protect these people from the ravages of this unfair tax.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
The petition is signed by 1,200 of my constituents and it has my full support.
To lie upon the Table.

Football (Identity Cards)
12.45 am
Mr. Bob Cryer: I have great pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of the residents of Bradford, South who wish to express their very strong opposition to the football identity card scheme. They are especially concerned that the lessons of Hillsborough have not been learnt by the Government, who are forcing the legislation through the House and are already suggesting all-night sittings. That is a disgraceful trampling on democratic parliamentary rights.
The petition states:
To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Parliament assembled showeth that the undersigned signatories express their condemnation of proposed legislation to force football supporters to carry identity cards.
We believe that a system of identity cards will have little impact on the problem of football related violence, will hinder football's attempts to attract a new generation of supporters and will lead to the eventual demise of the game as a spectator sport.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that the Government bring forward proposals which have the support of genuine football supporters. And your petitioner is duty bound, will pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Investment (North-West Region)
12.47 am
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Maclean.]
Mr. David Alton: Any hon. Member rising in the House at a quarter to one in the morning to initiate an Adjournment debate could hardly say that it was a matter of great pleasure. I am especially grateful to the Minister for having sat though the previous debates and presentations of petitions to be here to answer the debate on the subject of infrastructure and investment expenditure in the north-west region.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) is also here to share in the debate and to show the cross-party support for this subject, which need not divide people on partisan lines but can unite people from our region in the need to develop our infrastructure to meet the two challenges of the 1990s—the coming of the single European market in 1992 and the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993. Those two key events will make or break our region and will determine whether we become the gateway to the European Community or a mere backwater of Europe. We are not looking for sympathy or for handouts, but more for a recognition of the challenges that lie ahead and a willingness from Government to lend a helping hand. Despite the problems that the region faces, we are confident about its future and we want a partnership of public and private enterprise, of central and local government, of north and south.
I should like the Minister to consider a series of initiatives which would guarantee the future prosperity of our region. First, the region needs a carefully planned infrastructure to meet the ever-increasing transportation demands. That means better road and rail links. The existing motorway network, like the curate's egg, is good in parts, but the railway system is another matter altogether. How inappropriate it is that on the very day that our railways have again been closed by industrial action the Chancellor should announce his unwillingness to see improved investment in the system. Even more paradoxically, the announcement came within minutes of British Rail announcing a massive profit of £300 million. That is a staggering situation, given that it is sometimes impossible for people travelling to the north-west to find seats on InterCity trains. The local services are no better.
I have recently been in correspondence with the chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, about the service between Liverpool and Manchester. That follows a letter which I received from a constituent, who catalogued for me the number of times on which his train arrived late. On the first day, 23 May, it was five minutes late. The next day, it was 23 minutes late. Thereafter it was late by 15 minutes, 33 minutes, 10 minutes and 38 minutes. At the end of the letter, my constituent wrote:
"I am now near to distraction. I'm spending so much time waiting at Oxford Road Station at Manchester for non-existent trains or ones that are horrendously late. Once or twice a month I can live with but as a daily occurrence it's a nightmare."
In reply, Sir Robert Reid wrote:
"It is true that the radical changes in the Manchester area timetable introduced on 15 May have been plagued by shortages of rolling stock which have adversely affected punctuality and reliability. Indeed, we have been experiencing
444
difficulties in many parts of the North West due to the unsatisfactory gearboxes in our 'Pacer' trains necessarily being replaced by the manufacturers."
All this points to the need for adequate investment in our railway system.
The condition of the sidings and the track around Edge Hill station, which I think is the world's oldest railway scan still in use, and of many other local stations, as well as the approach to Liverpool Lime street, which is like the black hole of Calcutta, is an appalling advertisement for British Rail and for the city. Those areas, which are owned by British Rail, are dirty and neglected. Despite a recent meeting that I had with regional officers, little or nothing has been done to improve matters. Against that backdrop, British Rail's planned expenditure for future development is minuscule.
North-west Members are rightly anxious because British Rail's proposals for high-speed rail links and for railheads linked into the European network once the Channel tunnel is opened, have not been properly thought through. I am especially anxious that the railhead should be developed within the Liverpool freeport area to ensure that the freeport, which has been extremely successful, is able to capitalise on the opportunities that 1992 will present. On Friday last, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was good enough to accompany me to the freeport during his visit to the region. I am sure that he will confirm what I have said about the railhead, and I am pleased that he is in his place tonight.
On 6 March, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport about Merseytravel's anxieties that British Rail may not be wholly committed to providing direct through trains from the continent to the north-west. Forecasts suggest that a market will exist for at least two daytime high-speed through services from the north-west to Paris or Brussels, and probably an overnight service with a mixture of sleeping cars and reclining seat coaches as well. This would offer about 1,000 seats a day between the north-west and the rest of Europe. In addition, it is estimated that 1,000 lorry movements a day will transfer to rail post-1993. Three quarters of these movements will start or finish beyond London.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the £150 million investment planned by British Rail on electrification, track improvements and new locomotives will be adequate to meet the demand. I hope that he will also say whether British Rail's choice of King's Cross as the second London terminal for Channel tunnel passenger trains will place the north-west at a disadvantage, as Merseytravel believes.
I am especially heartened that the north-west region of the TUC, as well as the local chamber of commerce, have come out in favour of the land bridge proposal and have argued that infrastructure investment should provide opportunities for competing properly within Europe. In a note to north-west Members, the North West Regional Council of the TUC stated:
"Preliminary studies have pointed to the urgent need for strategic thinking, particularly on infrastructure investment and regional policy, if the net effects of developments in the early 1990s are to be positive."
It adds:
"Some work has begun already on the concept of Liverpool as a 'land bridge': European-bound container traffic from North America could be received at Liverpool and conveyed by through trains to European destinations. This option offers shorter journey times and improves

445
operating efficiency by avoiding congestion in the Channel. The Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and Industry is working on a feasibility study. The NW TUC welcomes and fully supports this initiative … In addition to the improvements in the rail network, an integrated transport infrastructure is essential if the North West is to gain from the Channel Tunnel. Recognising that, if rail is successful in dramatically increasing its share of freight traffic, a major proportion of freight will still have to be carried by road. Investment in the road network is therefore also an integral part of the programme necessary to the North West."
I strongly support what the north-west TUC and the chamber of commerce have argued, and they have the full support of north-west Members of Parliament. So, too, has the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company in its proposals for expanding the very successful freeport. That demonstrates how, given the opportunity, business can flourish in the north-west of England.
The Government established six freeports and, without trying to undermine any of the others, the other five have done pretty lamentably, whereas the Liverpool freeport has turned over £300 million-worth of business since its inception and has been a major success story.
In a letter to me today, following the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I had with Mr. Frank Rowbotham of the Liverpool freeport last Friday, Mr. Rowbotham states:
"To ensure the development of the first phase of the Freeport Park"—
some 20,000 sq ft—
"an urban development grant of 34 per cent. was necessary. Following the success of the first phase, an application for now what is City Grant Assistance has been submitted. It is still essential that the same level of assistance is forthcoming to make the next stage competitive and viable."
In other words, if the freeport is to continue to be successful, it will need a continued helping hand from Government.
On the Mersey estuary, the Mersey barrage presents an opportunity for a major piece of infrastructure and development. If the Government would give this project the green light, it could provide not just energy for local industries but an impounded area for more deep-sea facilities and massive numbers of construction jobs in an area in which, as the Minister well knows, there is a great need for more opportunities in the construction industry. The Government have given money for the feasibility study, which I welcome, and the project would involve the cleaning up of the Mersey at a time when more than 200 companies have permission to pollute the Mersey through the exemptions which they have been given. The project would not merely be a way of improving the quality of life, but would create more employment and attract more people to use the river as an area from leisure recreation and amenity.
One of the great advantages which the Government could bring to the area would be to support the campaign which has been waged by the Liverpool Echo newspaper and others for the Channel 5 television station to be based in the north-west. That would give the area a chance to develop its own media and infrastructure for promoting its image. If Glasgow, which has infinitely more problems than the major conurbations in the north-west, has been able to turn its image around, there is no reason why Liverpool, Manchester and the townships of the north-west should not do the same.
Basing Channel 5 in our region would prove a major asset and a great bonus to us. Similarly, other public bodies and private enterprise should also consider
446
devolving to the north-west, which has a great deal going for it. The south-east economy is increasingly overheated and bloated, and the north-west has enormous appeal to tourists and companies seeking a good quality of life for their employees. As the south-east economy falters, with high interest rates, soaring overheads, a weak pound, tight labour markets and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life, the north-west could become a prosperous and booming gateway to Europe.
There are still unemployment disparities between north and south. Last Thursday, Business Strategy, an independent forecaster, stated that in 1990 unemployment in the north could still be as high as 9·4 per cent., which is twice that of the south-east. That need not be a curse—it should be a challenge. This debate gives the House a chance to stress our bipartisan support for a Government strategy based on turning the curse of unemployment into a challenge to provide the north-west with the infrastructure necessary if we are properly to meet the challenge of 1992 and 1993.
1.1 am
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for arranging this debate and for allowing me to take part, briefly, in it. I agree with him that it is regrettable that the only time we have a debate on the north-west is when we are successful in the Ballot for private Members' motions or Adjournment debates, and I believe that the north-west is far too important to be dealt with in that way.
No one living in or visiting the north-west can fail to recognise, or be impressed by, the enormous amount of investment that has taken place there in recent years—investment in roads, rail, housing, industry, and the National Health Service, and in clearing up dereliction. But it is the investment in the highway network which has been most important in helping the region to help itself and in generating further investment—certainly in my part of the north-west, east Lancashire.
We are grateful for all that has been achieved, but there is a pressing need for even more if we are to take advantage of the opportunities now being opened to us. We need help to improve access to and within urban areas, to employment centres and airports and to Europe and the Channel tunnel. In the north-west as a whole, total investment requirements to meet the needs of motorways and trunk roads alone have been estimated at £1·2 billion, making it necessary to double the current level of investment to reach the desired standard for the national road network in the north-west by 2001.
Such investment would stimulate growth in employment and tourism, as recent investment in motorways in east Lancashire has shown. That investment has enabled Hyndburn borough council to attract an enthusiastic and energetic private developer, Mr. Eddy Quiligotti, to create a tourist attraction of national significance on land at the M65-A56-M66 junction at Huncoat. The estimated capital development cost of the scheme, known locally as the Winter Wonderland, is in excess of £250 million. It is expected to create 2,000 direct full-time jobs and 1,200 off-site jobs, and it is hoped that it will attract 4 million tourists each year. The park will provide a superb range of entertainment, sporting, eating and specialist shopping facilities. It is the best news that Hyndburn has had for years. All this has been made possible because the existing

447
or planned motorway connections to the M6, M61 and M62 mean that 5·5 million people now live within one hour's drive of Accrington—hence the importance of more investment.
Tourism in the north-west is a major expansion industry, and it is consequently a matter of concern that section 4 of the tourism grant aid scheme continues to be suspended. That scheme has been a vital pump-priming aid and its reinstatement would be beneficial to tourism in the north-west, not least to the Winter Wonderland project. With the reinstatement of section 4 and increased investment in the highways, I believe that the future of the north-west will be bright. I hope that the Government will listen to and take seriously many of the points made in this short debate.
1.3 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising the interests—
Mr. Alton: Grateful?
Mr. Atkins: Perhaps grateful is not the right word, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. None the less, it is important that the interests of the region that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) represent should be drawn to the attention of more people. As both said, the north-west is an area that is doing extremely well. Like many other areas, it has problems that it would be wrong to dismiss out of hand, but in general what is going on in the north-west, and even in the north-west extremities of our regions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will acknowledge, has developed great strengths about which we should talk far more.
A few days ago a major contract, which has many ramifications for the area, was awarded to a company in the north-west, Leyland DAF. The contract, which is to build the new truck for the Army, is worth £500 million, and transfers work that was originally intended for the south-east to the north-west. That is a tribute to what has been going on in our region.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill said much about transport matters. I shall touch on them wearing as much a constituency and a regional hat as a ministerial one, but he will know that these are, broadly speaking, matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I found myself drawn, even to the point of sedentary comment, to some of what he said about the railways. Like him, and my hon. Friend, I travel on British Rail at the weekends, so I have sympathy with the points that he made about tardiness, but much money has been spent on British Rail, and more will be spent. I shall draw, with a great deal of pleasure and support, his comments about infrastructure investment to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He may not be surprised to learn that I am doing so regularly off my own bat anyway.
Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend spoke about tourism. My hon. Friend will know, and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill will, in his usual charitable way, agree, that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr.
448
Lee), who is the Minister with responsibility for tourism, has worked long and hard, all over the country, but specifically in the north-west, to ensure the development of certain parts of our region, whether they are rural and conventionally attractive, seaside resorts or areas of industrial archaeological interest. The new tourist attractions mentioned by my hon. Friend, and those in my area, let alone those in Liverpool, are a tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Minister but to the tourism industry, which is developing regularly.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Minister take into account an important aspect of the future of Liverpool, Merseyside, and the hinterland of the north-west? Liverpool as a port is still an important factor. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that Liverpool maintains its port transactions and transport. Infrastructure is required to make Liverpool accessible to the continental ports, so that the port, which is still part of the economy, is taken into account in the general developments.
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is difficult for me to be drawn on matters that are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Equally, as a north-west Member, and one who spent two years of his working life in Liverpool associated with shipping and other related activities, I know only too well the importance of the port of Liverpool. Many of us recognise that while Liverpool has had its difficulties—I make no partisan point here—it is crucial in every respect to the development and continued success of the north-west, along with Manchester, through its airport, and other areas in both the extremities and the centre. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point about infrastructure support, and I would go along with it.
The hon. Gentleman also made a fair point about the image of the north-west, as, indeed, did my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn. Many of us would agree that the image is often portrayed in "Coronation Street" terms, and that there is a great deal more to our region than that—not only in the industrial sector but in tourism and, above all, in the attractive countryside and the people who contribute so much to the success of the north-west.
Hon. Members may know that, although I represent a north-western constituency, I am a southerner by origin. I have now been in the north-west for some 13 years, and I have been immensely impressed by the quality, dedication, enthusiasm and sheer commitment of the work force at all levels. They want to improve their area and to do their task—however it is perceived, and whatever the industry—to the best of their ability. If it is nothing else, the strength of the north-west is a work force that contributes so much to what is achieved, whether in my constituency, the hon. Gentleman's or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn. I think that we would all agree about that.
In my experience of travelling around the region, both as an Industry Minister with regional responsibilities and as a local Member of Parliament—I think that I can say this without too much contradiction, saving the presence of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr.

449
Wallace), who is from the extemities of our nation—the north-west provides the best work force in the United Kingdom, if they are properly guided.
Mr. David Maclean: Especially Penrith.
Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend must not make sedentary interventions of that nature, or he will provoke me.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of 1992, which provides a challenge as well as an opportunity. We are well placed to meet that challenge in the north-west, for various reasons that have been discussed this evening and on earlier occasions. I believe that the British economy and our regional economy are fundamentally strong, and that the challenge of facing up to what will effectively be a domestic market of some 320 million people—with all the opportunities that that provides—can be met.
I use the word "challenge" because, if we do not recognise the opportunity by the region's great manufacturing, service and professional industries, other companies and organisations on the mainland of Europe will seek the opportunity to come to us and beat us at our own game. Any area within the region that hon. Members care to name—Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Accrington, even Penrith—has many virtues, developed over decades or perhaps centuries. Perhaps occasionally we are a little too complacent and smug about the fact that the world can pass it by and somehow, if we carry on as we are, we shall be all right. We can do that no longer, for 1992 will present a challenge that we ignore at out peril.
It has been the task of my Department, first, to ensure that industries are aware of exactly what 1992 means.
450
When we started our successful campaign, about one in two companies—that includes our region—were aware of what was going on, which meant that 70 or 80 per cent. were not. As a result of our campaign, the figure is nearly 100 per cent. Not all companies, however, know that they must make the decision to face up to the opportunity. It is a message that I invite the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn to convey to the companies and the people in their constituencies. It is simply, as Winston Churchill said all those years ago, that action is needed "this day", to make sure that one knows what needs to be done and gets on with it.
I am quite convinced that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn are fully aware of the strengths of our region and recognise the challenges that have been presented to it, of which the Channel tunnel is one. I do not wish to be drawn as yet as to where the location of investment should be. Many of my constituents take one view; many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn may take another. I am content to leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who is responsible for transport matters, but I shall put to him that view and that concern.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill for raising in his own inimitable way the interest and the concern of our region; which the Government share. He is right to say that it is a cross-party matter. Representatives of the three major parties are here tonight. I shall do my best, as a Minister with responsibility for the regions and industry, to ensure that our region gets the best that is available to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past One o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Marconi
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Marconi or associate company defence contracts are the subject of inquiries by Ministry of Defence police or the special fraud office where charges have not yet been brought;

  (2) what inquiries are being undertaken into supply of sonar equipment, radar, J-Tids and the management of Marconi by his Department, including Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Inquiries are being made into a number of allegations and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage; the work of the serious fraud office is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which contracts between his Department and Marconi or its associate companies moneys have been repaid following upon past costing or inquiries by civil servants.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information relating to the Ministry's dealings with individual companies on post-costing activity or related inquiries is subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the United Kingdom annual defence procurement budget was spent with Marconi and its associate companies in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Payments made to the Marconi Co. Ltd. in respect of headquarters contracts in each of the three years since 1986 represent the following proportions of the United Kingdom annual defence procurement budget:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1986–87

  7·0

  1987–88

  7·1

  1988–89

  5·5

  F111 Aircraft
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety records of the F111E and the F111A aircraft based at RAF Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Neubert
  The current safety records of the F111E and the EF111A, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers, are comparable to those of any combat aircraft in the 158
  United States air force inventory. There have been no accidents involving EF111A from RAF Upper Heyford and only one accident involving an F111E from RAF Upper Heyford in the 1980s. That was in 1984 when an aircraft suffered a bird strike while on a training flight in Scotland. Both crew members ejected safely.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fair Trading (Report)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for the year 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The 15th annual report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1988 to 31 December 1988. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

  Coats Viyella
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what public financial assistance has been paid to Coats Viyella in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on payments of Government financial assistance to individual companies is commercially confidential except to the extent that it has been published in British Business under standing arrangements. The following information has been published in British Business on financial assistance to Coats Viyella since it was incorporated in April 1986:

  £

  Payments of RDG I

  Nil

  Payments of RDG II

  Nil

  Offers of RSA

  1500,000

  Offers of Section 8 assistance

  Nil

  1 Published in 1987.

  This information relates to Coats Viyella plc: information on assistance paid or offered to its subsidiary companies could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on changes to the regime for regulating consumer credit.

  Mr. Maude
  I have today signed new regulations relating to consumer credit advertisements and quotations and I have also signed a commencement order under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 relating to the licensing of consumer credit businesses.

  The new Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations will come into force on 1 February 1990. The regulations have been substantially simplified. This should be a major benefit to both traders and enforcement bodies. At the same time, additional safeguards for consumers have been provided, including a warning about the risk of loss of the borrower's home in the event of default on a secured loan and about the risks of foreign currency

  159
  mortgages. The new regulations relating to consumer credit quotations will bring them into line with the advertisement regulations.

  Consumer credit trade associations, consumer bodies and enforcement authorities were consulted at every stage of the revision.

  The commencement order under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will bring the licensing provisions of the Act into force for individuals, partnerships and other unincorporated businesses which have, until now, been exempt from the Act if they dealt exclusively in loans of £30 or less. From 31 July, it will be an offence to carry on such a business without having applied to the Director General of Fair Trading for a consumer credit licence.

  The exemption from licensing was originally intended to reduce the burden on very small firms, but is of little practical benefit to legitimate businesses because there are few businesses which make loans only for amounts of less than £30 and which are not covered by one of the other exemptions from licensing requirement. However, the £30 exemption has proved a significant obstacle to enforcement bodies such as local authority trading standards officers. Not only do they have to prove that the trader has been engaged in moneylending, but that at least some of his agreements have been for sums of more than £30.

  Traders who apply to the Director General of Fair Trading for a licence by 31 July will be able to continue to carry on this category of business as they will be deemed to be licensed until the licence application has been finally determined.

  Credit brokerage businesses that are carried on by an individual, partnership or unincorporated body and that introduce customers to a source of credit exclusively for sums not exceeding £30 are still exempt from licensing.

  Diesel Fuels
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce quality specifications for diesel fuels on the lines of those operated in the United States of America.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have been asked to reply. None. On behalf of the European Commission, the European Central Standards Organisation (CEN) is now working on a quality specification for diesel fuels within the Community.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of value added tax charged in each European country for (i) food in shops, (ii) food in restaurants, (iii) books, (iv) magazines, (v) newspapers, (vi) household fuel, (vii) rents, (viii) house purchase, (ix) children's clothing and (x) parish hall or community centres.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information available for each EC member state is set out in the following tables:
  160

  1. Food in shops1

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  6·0

  Denmark

  22·0

  France

  25·5

  Germany

  7·0

  Greece

  6·0

  Ireland

  30·0

  Italy

  44·0,9·0

  Luxembourg

  53·0,6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  60·0,8·0, (6·0)

  Spain

  6·0

  United Kingdom

  70·0

  1 Excluding luxury foods.

  2 With certain exceptions, e.g. sweets, ice-cream, margarine which are standard rated at 18·6 per cent.

  3 Alcohol and soft drinks other than fruit juices are liable at 25 per cent, in all circumstances, as is all food and drink supplied through a vending machine.

  4 The lower rate applies to essential foodstuffs such as bread, pasta and fish.

  5 The lower rate applies to meat, meat products, bread and butter.

  6 The rate shown in brackets applies to the autonomous regions of the Madeira and Azores archipelagos. The zero rate applies to unprepared foodstuffs.

  7 With certain exceptions including ice-cream, chocolates and similar confectionery, alcoholic and soft drinks, potato crisps and similar products and pet foods.

  2. Food in restaurants

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  17·0

  Denmark

  22·0

  France

  18·6

  Germany

  14·0

  Greece

  1—

  Ireland

  10·0

  Italy

  29·0

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  38·0 (6·0)

  Spain

  46·0, 12·0

  United Kingdom

  15·0

  1 Greece has set its VAT rates at 6 per cent., 18 per cent., and 36 per cent., but full details about the applicability of the rates are not yet available.

  2 Excluding the supply of food in luxury premises including luxury hotels.

  3 Lower rates apply in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira archipelagos.

  4 The higher rate applies to services supplied in luxury hotels.

  3. Books

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  6·0

  Denmark

  22·0

  France

  2·1

  Germany

  7·0

  Greece

  1—

  Ireland

  0·0

  Italy

  0·0

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  0·0

  Spain

  6·0

  United Kingdom

  0·0

  1 Information not available.

  161

  4. Newspapers

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  0·0

  Denmark

  0·0

  France

  2·1

  Germany

  7·0

  Greece

  1—

  Ireland

  10·0

  Italy

  0·0

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  0·0

  Spain

  6·0

  United Kingdom

  0·0

  1 Information not available.

  5. Magazines

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  6·0

  Denmark

  22·0

  France

  2·1

  Germany

  7·0

  Greece

  1—

  Ireland

  25·0

  Italy

  0·0

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  0·0

  Spain

  6·0

  United Kingdom

  0·0

  1 Information not available.

  6. Household fuel

  Country

  Coal/peat/wood per cent.

  Oil per cent.

  Gas per cent.

  Electricity per cent.

  Belgium

  6·0

  17·0

  17·0

  17·0

  Denmark

  22·0

  22·0

  22·0

  22·0

  France

  18·6

  18·6

  5·5

  5·5

  Germany

  214·0

  14·0

  14·0

  14·0

  Greece1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  10·0

  10·0

  10·0

  5·0

  Italy

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  Luxembourg

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  Netherlands

  18·5

  18·5

  18·5

  18·5

  Portugal

  8·0 (6·0)

  8·0 (6·0)

  8·0 (6·0)

  38·0 (6·0)

  Spain

  12·0

  12·0

  12·0

  12·0

  United Kingdom

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1 Information not available.

  2 Wood is taxed at the reduced rate of 7 per cent.

  3 Lower rates apply in autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira archipelagos.

  Rent

  The letting of immovable property is exempt from VAT in every member state, although some member states operate an option to tax in certain circumstances.

  8. House purchase

  Country

  Rate on new buildings per cent.

  Rate on secondhand buildings per cent.

  Belgium

  17·0

  Exempt

  Denmark

  22·0

  Exempt

  France

  18·6

  Exempt

  Germany

  Exempt

  Exempt

  162

  Country

  Rate on new buildings per cent.

  Rate on secondhand buildings per cent.

  Greece1

  —

  —

  Ireland

  10·0

  2 Exempt

  Italy

  34·0, 19·0

  34·0, 19·0

  Luxembourg

  Exempt

  Exempt

  Netherlands

  18·5

  Exempt

  Portugal

  Exempt

  Exempt

  Spain

  412·0

  Exempt

  United Kingdom

  0·0

  Exempt

  1 Information not available.

  2 Or 10 per cent, if developed since 31 October 1972 and input tax credit was claimed.

  3 Certain "low-priced" housing 4 per cent., others 19 per cent.

  4 Or 6 per cent, if the first supply by a constructor of a residential dwelling.

  9. Children's Clothing

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  19·0

  Denmark

  22·0

  France

  18·6

  Germany

  14·0

  Greece

  16·0

  Ireland

  10·0

  Italy

  19·0

  Luxembourg

  12·0

  Netherlands

  18·5

  Portugal

  117·0, 12·0

  Spain

  12·0

  United Kingdom

  0·0

  1 Lower rate applies in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira archipelagoes.

  10. Parish Hall or Community Centres
  Leasing of such buildings is exempt in all member states. For purchase (including construction), in other member states the rates in table 8 above generally apply. In the United Kingdom, the construction of new village halls and similar charitable community buildings will remain zero-rated, following clarification by the EC Commission of last year's judgment of the European Court of justice. The leasing of buildings is exempt unless the charities opt to tax the rents or unless the supply includes the admission to sports to other recreational facilities.

  Departmental Relocation
  Mr. Robert Sheldon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he is receiving for the relocation of activities in Government Departments.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General informed the House on 9 February 1989, columns 751–52, that Departments' reports to the Treasury on their relocation reviews during the 1988 public expenditure survey had indicated over 34,000 Civil Service posts under review. Departments are reporting on the progress of their review programmes in the current survey, and my right hon. Friend will be making a further announcement after its conclusion.

  Ministers assess the relocation proposals of their own Departments, following Treasury guidelines, and announce their decisions accordingly.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the consequences for economic policy of joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system at the current exchange rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 29 July 1989]: Maintenance of the exchange rate within the agreed limits would become a proximate objective of policy.

  British Pensioners (Canada)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider compensating British pensioners in Canada when a high differential between exchange rates exists.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. There are no provisions in the Social Security Acts which allow adjustments to be made when variations occur in exchange rates as between the United Kingdom and other countries. United Kingdom benefit rates are set at levels appropriate to beneficiaries who are in the United Kingdom and it would neither be practicable nor fair to expect the national insurance fund and the Department to meet the costs and administrative difficulties involved in making adjustments to meet the specific situation of pensioners who are living abroad, in some 170 countries, generally as a matter of choice.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Belfast/Dublin Euroroute
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to speed up the dualling of the main Belfast—Dublin Euroroute from the MI motorway as far as the land frontier with the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Approximately two thirds of the road between the M1 motorway and the border with the Republic of Ireland is already dual carriageway. It is planned to complete the dualling of the last remaining stretch of single carriageway between the M1 and Loughbrickland by May 1992. The Newry bypass, which is being constructed to single carriageway standard, should be completed by August 1994. The remaining stretches of single carriageway will be dualled as and where traffic flows warrant it.

  Roads Investment
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take to improve investment in roads infrastructure in the Province along the lines of the proposals by the Secretary of State for Transport for England and Wales.

  Mr Needham
  In keeping with the Government's objective to maintain a sound roads infrastructure in Northern Ireland, I am allocating an additional £28 million for structural maintenance of the existing network over a three-year period. Appropriate priority is being given to the maintenance needs of the main inter-urban routes. We continue to develop the main road system through an annual programme of new construction schemes. In addition, major investment is planned in a new 164
  cross-harbour road link to improve traffic conditions in and around central Belfast. Funds have already been made available to enable land and property acquisition to proceed.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  St Helena (Ferry)
  Mr Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the circumstances surrounding the Overseas Development Administration involvement in the St Helena ferry construction, and in the decision to give the contract to A and P Appledore.

  Mr. Eggar
  The aid programme is financing the construction of a new mixed passenger and cargo ship for the Government of St Helena. The contract was placed in December 1987 with Hall Russell Ltd of Aberdeen. This company went into receivership in November 1988, but work on the ship continued. The joint receivers sold Hall Russell's assets in February 1989. A contract to complete the ship was subsequently concluded by the Overseas Development Administration, acting on behalf of the Government of St Helena, with the yard's new owner, A and P Appledore (Aberdeen) Ltd. We are satisfied with both the contract and the good progress that is now being made. The ship is to be launched on 31 October.

  EC Expenditure (Developing Countries)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the European Community Articles under which the Community may co-finance projects in developing countries and development education projects with United Kingdom non-governmental organisations, and the Community's expenditure under each article on projects co-financed with United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  European Community co-financing with European non-governmental organisations for projects in developing countries and development education projects is funded from line 941 of the Community budget. In his reply of 16 June, column 546, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development listed the amounts granted to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations under this programme in 1987.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Marconi
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General what inquiries are currently being undertaken by the special fraud office into contracts for sonar equipment supplied by Marconi and its associated companies.

  The Attorney-General
  The serious fraud office, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence police, is investigating a number of allegations concerning the Marconi Company Limited and its subsidiaries. It would not be appropriate for me to provide more specific information.

TRANSPORT

  Coastal Waters (Chemicals)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to introduce a permanent record of all incidents where chemicals contained in drums or containers sink within 100 miles of the British coast.

  Mr. Portillo
  The present arrangement is that records are kept of chemical losses where on scientific advice salvage is attempted, within United Kingdom waters or on the United Kingdom continental shelf. I am satisfied that that is appropriate.

  European Parliament
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a Minister or official from his Department last attended a meeting of the Transport Committee of the European Parliament.

  Mr. Portillo
  The former Secretary of State for Transport appeared before the Committee on 23 April 1986. Government officials maintain contacts with Committees of the European Parliament.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy to make responses to proposals made by the Transport Committee of the European Parliament which have been endorsed by vote at the European Parliamentary Assembly.

  Mr. Portillo
  Proposals made under the co-operation procedure are formally considered by the Council of Ministers.

  Microlight Plane (Accidents)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the accidents, including fatalities, involving the microlight plane since its introduction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation within the United Kingdom. I am asking the chairman of the authority to write to my hon. Friend.

  Road Tax
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the outcome was of the intensive crackdown on untaxed vehicles following the roadside checks carried out by the London enforcement office assisted by the Metropolitan and City of London police forces for the period following 16 May.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Three thousand eight hundred motorists were reported for not having a current road fund licence on display. These cases are being investigated. Where it is clear that vehicle excise duty has been evaded, those responsible will be prosecuted.

  Coastguard Helicopter (Lee-on-Solent)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the number of operations undertaken by the coastguard helicopter based at Lee-on-Solent during its first year of service.
  166
  Mr. Portillo
  In the first year of operation, which commenced on 15 May 1988, the helicopter attended 146 incidents and assisted 68 persons. Furthermore, during many of those incidents the aircraft participated in rescues in which lifeboats or other craft landed survivors.

  M25
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answers of 24 April,Official Report, column 447, and 15 May, Official Report, column 11, if he will now place a copy of some provisional traffic statistics for M25 main carriageway, entry and exit slip roads collected by or for his Department in the Library in advance of the final statistics to be included in the report of the M25 review.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The M25 review report will be published soon.

  Air Traffic Controllers
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss staffing levels of aii traffic controllers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State frequently meets the chairman of the authority to discuss a whole range of topics of mutual interest.

  Railways (Safety)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to set up an independent inquiry into recent rail accidents and safety conditions on British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding reply 30 June 1989]: Three separate independent public inquiries have been held into the recent tragic accidents at Clapham junction, Purley and Beligrove. I am awaiting the reports, which will be published. Mr. Anthony Hidden QC, who is conducting the Clapham junction inquiry, is considering whether any broader management lessons need to be learnt and will take into account any relevant evidence from the other two inquiries.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Universities Funding Council
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will give the cash and constant price figures for funds made available to the UFC for current grants, excluding changes in the home student fee levels, compensation for redundancy and early retirement, information technology and new blood programmes deflated by the gross domestic product deflator, the retail prices index and the university pay and prices index, for each of the years 1980–81 to 1988–89;

  (2) if he will give the cash and constant price figures of funds made available to the UFC for recruitment and capital grants, shown separately and each deflated by the appropriate gross domestic product deflator, and the universities retail pay and prices index for each of the years 1980–81 to 1988–89.
  167
  Mr. Jackson
  Capital and recurrent grants made to universities in Great Britain on the advice of the University Grants Committee were as follows:

  £ million

  Financial Years

  Capital

  Recurrent

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  Real terms

  1980–81

  97·9

  144·6

  942·9

  1,393·1

  1981–82

  103·1

  138·8

  968·0

  1,303·2

  1982–83

  106·8

  134·3

  1,176·2

  1,478·8

  1983–84

  103·1

  123·9

  1,222·2

  1,468·5

  1984–85

  106·7

  122·2

  1,253·2

  1,434·9

  1985–86

  118·2

  128·3

  1,282·6

  1,392·3

  1986–87

  130·2

  136·7

  1,320·1

  1,386·4

  1987–88

  128·8

  128·8

  1,464·0

  1,464·0

  '1988–89

  140·1

  130·6

  1,584·9

  1,477·8

  1 Estimate.

  This includes cash provision of £50 million in 1982–83 and £30 million in 1983–84 for redundancy and premature retirement compensation: subtracting this from recurrent grant gives real terms figures for those years of £1,415·9 million and £1,432·5 million. Recurrent grant for 1982–83 included provision of over £100 million in compensation for reduced tuition fee income but was not separately identified in later years. Information is not available to make the other adjustments requested.

  Real terms are at 1987–88 prices as measured by the GDP deflator which the Government regard as the most appropriate measure of the cost to the economy as a whole and to the public purse of expenditure changes. Over the period in question, this moved from a base of 100 to 158·5. The retail prices index, which relates only to general consumers' expenditure, moved from a base of 100 in January 1981 to 157·9 in January 1989. From November 1980 to January 1989, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals' university pay and prices index moved from a base of 100 to 167·6, although this does not fully reflect the efficiency gains which have occurred over the period.

  Ethnic Minority Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make available in the Vote Office the recent report produced for the Department on the education of West Indian or Asian children in state schools; if he will summarise in the Official Report the main findings of the report; and what action he intends to take to implement the finding of the report.

  Mr. Butcher
  A copy of "The School Effect: A Study of Multiracial Comprehensives" has been placed in the Library. This report is based on research which followed the progress of 3,000 pupils in 20 urban comprehensives, starting in 1981. The research found striking differences between the schools surveyed in what they did and how they did it. The level of achievement of pupils of similar abilities, regardless of their ethnic or social background, varied markedly according to the school they attended. Differences in examination results between ethnic groups were small and very much smaller than the differences between schools.

  This report reinforces the Government's determination to press ahead with the implementation of the national curriculum and with the arrangements for assessment and testing so that every child can have the best possible start in life.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he will make it his policy to give the Natural Environment Research Council the necessary funds to develop work into better understanding of water quality in United Kingdom rivers;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to give the Natural Environment Research Council the necessary funds to develop work in the combined geological and biological research needed to investigate the natural effects and the impact of pollution.

  Mr. Jackson
  As stated in my replies to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth on 4 July,Official Report, columns 124–25, my right hon. Friend will as usual consider expenditure on all areas of scientific research sponsored by this Department later this year, after studying advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  Research Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money was provided by his Department for research into the links between pollution and human health (i) each year from 1979–89 and (ii) in the current financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 3 July 19891: The Medical Research Council, which receives grant-in-aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. Since 1979–90, the council has spent the following amounts on research into links between pollution and human health, covering research on chemical and physical hazards, sound and vibration, and radiation.

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  4·3

  1980–81

  5·8

  1981–82

  6·1

  1982–83

  5·8

  1983–84

  6·1

  1984–85

  5·5

  1985–86

  5·4

  1986–87

  5·2

  1987–88

  5·3

  Figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are not yet available.

  A small element of the research carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council is also relevant to links between pollution and human health. It is estimated that over the last 10 years £0·3 million of money provided by this Department has been spent on such work.

  Additionally, university departments and medical schools support a range of research from block grants from the Universities Funding Council, some of which may be relevant to links between pollution and human health.

PRIME MINISTER

  EC Nuclear Policy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if, during her meeting with heads of governments of the European Community states in Madrid she, or other participants in
  169
  the meeting, raised the matter of (a) nuclear materials safeguards, (b) a common policy on nuclear fuel reprocessing, (c) the future of the European fast reactor collaborative programme, (d) the role of the Euratom nuclear materials supply agency and (e) recent reports from the European Parliament on nuclear power and radiation protection;

  (2) if, during the recent meeting of heads of governments of European Community states held in Madrid, the issue of the transfrontier transport of radioactive and toxic waste under the changes to be implemented under the Single European Act in 1992 was discussed; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made to the House on 29 June about the meeting of the European Council in Madrid.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during the recent summit of heads of Government of European Community states held in Madrid, the matter of the Western European Union and an independent nuclear weapons force for western Europe was discussed.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during the recent meeting of heads of Governments of the European Community states held in Madrid she raised with the French Prime Minister or Foreign Minister the prospects of France signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will appoint one Minister to have specific responsibility for Hong Kong.

  The Prime Minister
  My noble Friend Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, already has special responsibility for Hong Kong.

  Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd.
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any Government Departments have any current contracts with Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd., 17 Hanover Square, London W1R 0FL, or any of its international branches; and whether she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No central listing of companies in contract with Government Departments is maintained. A review of the records of the main Government Departments shows no evidence of any current contracts with Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd. or any of its international branches.

  Bristol Channel (Sewage)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to take personal control of the co-ordination work required to stop the dumping of raw sewage into the Bristol channel and to work towards these beaches attaining the standards of the EC bathing water directive 76/160/EEC.
  170
  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him yesterday, column 82.

  Welsh Development Agency (Buy-outs)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will institute an external inquiry into the proposed management buy-out proposals by senior executives of the Welsh Development Agency west Wales sector; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what is the Government's policy on management buyouts in the regional areas of the Welsh Development Agency; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 3 July at column 16 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

ENERGY

  Cold Fusion (Harwell)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress made in research into cold fusion at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that following a comprehensive programme of experiments at Harwell, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has decided to end research into cold fusion as the results have shown no evidence of fusion reactions.

  Fuel and Energy Supply Industries
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of his Department's policies, in terms of fuel and energy supply industries for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The utilisation of all energy resources has an impact on the environment. The energy supply and use in this country is determined largely by customer choice and market forces within the current regulatory framework, including environmental regulations administered by the Department of the Environment.

  The law requires that the environmental impacts of proposed major energy projects, like many other large developments, be assessed. With certain limitations, new power stations and pipelines fall within the ambit of the Electricity and Pipe-lines Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1989 which my Department administers.

  Dounreay
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the uranium oxide breeder fuel incorporated in the Dounreay fast reactor core fuel sub-assemblies has been reprocessed with, or separate from, the fuel sub-assembly uranium/plutonium oxide fuel pins.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the UKAEA and I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Plutonium Waste)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, 20 June, columns 92–3,

  171
  the amounts of residual plutonium in wastes at Harwell, Sellafield and Dounreay are notified to his Department for the purposes of nuclear safeguards records.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The industry notified Euratom, through the Department.

  Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Implementation Report
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (I) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, 19 June, column 13, if the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Implementation report for 1988 lists any anomalies in regard to United Kingdom facilities;

  (2) how many instances of safeguards goals not being met are listed in the 1988 International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards implementation report, a copy of which has been received by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply. The annual safeguards implementation reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency are confidential. A summary will be published in the agency's 1988 annual report, which will be placed in the Library of the House, when it becomes available.

  Gas Emissions
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the carbon dioxide emissions due to fossil fuels utilised in the mining and enrichment of uranium are taken account of in his Department's calculations of current and likely future greenhouse gas emissions; what the emission rate per gigawatt year of electricity currently is; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Carbon dioxide emissions from the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle are negligible and vary according to the country in which the activity is undertaken. Such emissions in the United Kingdom are included in the industrial emissions category.

  The emission rate of carbon dioxide for the electricity supplied by the CEGB, from all sources, in 1987 was approximately 7 million tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt year.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates his Department has produced for the carbon dioxide emissions which occur due to the fossil fuels utilised in the complete nuclear fuel cycle for a Magnox reactor, advance gas-cooled reactor and a pressurised water reactor of the Hinkley C type.

  Mr Michael Spicer
  My Department has made no detailed estimates of CO2 emissions from the fuel cycle for nuclear power stations, but in general these will be negligible and depend on the sources of energy supply used to run the individual processes involved.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what specific proposals his Department has put forward for consideration and enactment, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane, since the seminar held by the Prime Minister on 26 April.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Current policies and initiatives are intended to limit the emission of CO2 Further measures to cut such emissions will be considered as further scientific evidence is generated.
  172
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many waste landfill sites produce methane gas in the United Kingdom; how much methane gas is estimated to be produced annually in million tonnes of methane and carbon dioxide equivalent; and what estimates he has of additional sources of methane gas;

  (2) what level of methane leaks occurs in natural gas systems in the United Kingdom, in both million tonnes and as a percentage of total gas produced, broken down by (a) that related to natural gas production and pipelines and (b) that related to point of use.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Any site which has taken biodegradeable waste has the potential to produce landfill gas. Records of the types of waste permitted at landfill sites in England and Wales show that there are approximately 3,500 sites which have been licensed to receive waste of the type that can produce landfill gas. In 1988 Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution estimated that some 1,300 of these might require gas management measures. In addition, HMIP is aware of sites producing landfill gas which were licensed to deposit only inert wastes.

  My Department has expended £10 million on research and development into biofuels, including ,£1·1 million on landfill gas up to the end of the financial year 1988–1989. This has resulted in successful demonstrations of landfill gas technology which is leading to increasing commercial exploitation. Recent estimates from the Energy Technology Support Unit suggest that about 0·7 megatonnes of methane are produced annually by landfill sites in the United Kingdom. As molecule for molecule methane is about 25 to 30 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide, this represents the equivalent, on a weight for weight basis, of between 50 to 55 megatonnes of CO2.

  We are aware of 14 sites generating electricity from landfill gas with an installed capacity of around 25 MW. We expect the installed capacity to increase to over 40 MW during the next year. The non-fossil fuel obligation in the Electricity Bill should provide an enhanced opportunity for renewable energy, including landfill gas. All economic and practical proposals will be eligible to contribute to the initial obligation to be set towards the end of 1989. Further tranches totalling up to 600 MW reserved exclusively for renewables will be set during the 1990s.

  Other significant non-biological sources of methane gas consist of leakages from the natural gas production, distribution and supply system and from the seepage of the gas during coal production—this represented just over 1 megatonnes in 1988 of which about 10 per cent. is utilised and so does not escape to the atmosphere.

  Natural gas leakage, together with permitted venting in the United Kingdom continental shelf, amounts to about I per cent. of throughput, or about 0.4 megatonnes a year of methane at current levels. The majority of this is attributable to leakage from the distribution system and only a very small proportion relates to the point of use.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gdansk Shipyard
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for the operation in Poland of the Helsinki Final Act of the threat by the managing director
  173
  of the Anglo-Polish company Durainsul to sack any worker at its leased port of the Gdansk shipyard who joins a trade union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All CSCE states decided in the 1983 Madrid concluding document to ensure the right of workers freely to establish and join trade unions and other rights as laid down in relevant international instruments. We expect states to comply fully with this and all other CSCE commitments.

  Angola
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in Angola and the prospects for the ending of civil war in that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We warmly welcome the progress made towards internal reconciliation in Angola, notably the meeting between President dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi on 22 June and the agreement to implement a ceasefire from 24 June. We are urging both sides to respect the ceasefire and to continue to show flexibility in the difficult negotiations that lie ahead.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official visits abroad he has made during his tenure of office; how many officials on average accompanied him on each trip; and what was the total cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since June 1983 the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made the following number of visits abroad:

  Visits

  1983

  25

  1984

  43

  1985

  49

  1986

  41

  1987

  42

  1988

  40

  1989 to date

  19

  TOTAL

  259

  On average three officials have accompanied him on each trip.

  The total cost was £4,200,000 approximately.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current state of relations with Pakistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our excellent relations with Pakistan have been reinforced by the restoration of democracy in that country. We look forward to Prime Minister Bhutto's visit here as a guest of the British Government from 5 to 12 July.

  Hydrographers Department
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much he paid the hydrographers department for the last complete period for advice on territorial limits and international maritime advice.
  174
  Mr. Eggar
  The hydrographer's department is part of the Ministry of Defence and is funded by that Ministry. The hydrographer's department does not charge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its advice.

  EC (Economic and Monetary Union)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend the European Economic Community Council of Ministers to discuss preparations for the proposed inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I expect to attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 and 18 July. The agenda will include follow-up to the Madrid European Council.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he had had with representatives of the Government of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Hong Kong from 2 to 4 July. During his visit he met the Governor, senior officials and representatives of the community of Hong Kong. Their discussions covered the range of current issues in Hong Kong, including recent developments in China and their implications for Hong Kong.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet with his European Community counterparts to discuss the future of Hong Kong citizens.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already discussed this matter with his EC colleagues at the recent meeting of the European Council in Madrid. We will continue to urge the international community to join us in doing everything possible to restore the confidence of people in Hong Kong following the recent appalling events in China.

  Atwah Lufti Sumar Hirzallah
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli local authorities about the killing of Atwah Lufti Sumar Hirzallah; and what response he obtained.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Departmental Interviews
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on recording interviews given by his Department to journalists.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Ministerial interviews are normally recorded.

  China
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the common action being taken by the European Community against the Government of the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Eggar
  The EC issued a joint statement on 6 June which strongly condemned the violent suppression of the demonstrations in China. On 15 June the presidency carried out a demarche, stressing the Twelve's grave concern at continuing repression and expressing hope that economic and political reform could be put back on course, together with adherence to respect for human rights. On 17 June a further demarche was made, appealing for clemency for the first persons sentenced to death in connection with the demonstrations. On 27 June the European Council agreed a declaration on China which reiterated the Twelve's condemnation and adopted a package of measures to be taken by the Community and its member states.

  Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the countries that have neither signed nor ratified, acceded or succeeded to the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following states are not parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty:

  Albania

  Kuwait1

  Algeria

  Mauritania

  Andorra

  Mozambique

  Angola

  Monaco

  Argentina

  Nauru

  Brazil

  Niger

  Burma

  Oman

  Chile

  Pakistan

  China

  St. Christopher and Nevis

  Comoros

  South Africa

  Cuba

  United Arab Emirates

  Djibouti

  United Republic of Tanzania

  France

  Vanuatu

  Guyana

  Zambia

  India

  Zimbabwe

  Israel

  1 Signed the Treaty on 22 August 1968, but has not ratified.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries currently party to the non-proliferation treaty with their dates(a) of signature, (b) of subsequent deposit of instrument of ratification, accession or succession and (c) of safeguards agreement in force with the International Atomic Energy Agency under the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am placing in the Library of the House a list of the dates of signature and ratification, accession or succession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Details of safeguards agreements are contained in the publication "Agreements Registered with the International Atomic Energy Agency", a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. We understand that the publication is currently being updated by the agency, and a copy of the revised edition will be placed in the Library when it is issued.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries that 176
  at present have signed the non-proliferation treaty but have not ratified, acceded or succeeded to it, with their dates of signature.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Kuwait is the only state in this category—date of signature 22 August 1968.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those occasions since May 1979 when representations concerning the non-proliferation treaty have been made at ministerial level by Her Majesty's Government to those states not party to the non-proliferation treaty at the time of the representation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Such representations have been made at a variety of levels on numerous occasions. A detailed list could, however, be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  India (Non-Proliferation)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen),Official Report, 14 June, column 475, he will set out in the Official Report the last opportunity deemed suitable when Her Majesty's Government's views on non-proliferation were made clear to the Indian Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently raised non-proliferation issues with members of the Indian Government during his visit to India from 28 March to 1 April.

  Poland
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the Government of Poland regarding recent progress in that country towards democracy and individual freedom; and if he will make a statement on the current state of relations with Poland.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs recently had the opportunity to discuss developments in Poland, including the elections, with both General Jaruzelski and Professor Geremek of Solidarity. I, too, had the pleasure of meeting Professor Geremek. May I refer my hon. Friend to my recent statements of 6 April and 14 June, on our relations with Poland.

  Hungary
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Hungary regarding recent progress in that country towards democracy and individual freedom; and if he will make a statement on the current state of relations with Hungary.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We welcome Hungary's moves towards a multi-party system and a state based on the rule of law. My right hon. and learned Friend discussed these matters with the Hungarian State Minister, Imre Pozsgay, on 25 April. I am visiting Hungary next week, and will meet a wide range of party, Government and opposition figure.
  177
  Our bilateral relations with Hungary are excellent, with regular contact at all levels, as befits a country in the vanguard of political reform in Eastern Europe.

  Council of Europe
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the member countries of the Council of Europe that have now ratified and put in effect (i) the European social charter, (ii) the European convention on social security, (iii) the European code on social security and (iv) the European convention on human rights.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The following is a list of member states of the Council of Europe which have ratified and put into effect:

  (i) The European Social Charter:
  Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom;

  (ii) The European Convention on Social Security:
  Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Turkey;

  (iii) The European Code of Social Security:
  Belgium, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom; and

  (iv) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights):
  Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Farah Syed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mrs. Farah Syed, who was born in 1971 and whose reference is IMM/96415, first applied to the post of Islamabad to enter the United Kingdom; and when a decision is going to be taken on her application.

  Mr. Eggar
  In accordance with the recent guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit in due course.

  Antarctica (French Airstrip)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the purpose of the airstrip being constructed by the French in Antarctica; and what effect this project is having on wildlife in the region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The airstrip is needed to facilitate glaciological research in a key area of the Antarctic interior. The results of this research will be made available to Antarctic treaty parties.

  There have been differing reports from environmentalists and the French authorities on the extent of the effect
  178
  on wildlife in the region. The French Government have promised to produce a paper on the construction of the airstrip which will give further details.

  EEC Budget
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will set out in tabular form the total net payments or total net receipts of each of the member states for the EEC budget since 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested concerning the United Kingdom is set out in the table. Comparable figures for other member states are not available.

  Net contribution to European Community budget

  Year

  £ million

  1979

  947

  1980

  706

  1981

  397

  1982

  606

  1983

  647

  1984

  656

  1985

  1,808

  1986

  572

  1987

  1,713

  1988

  1,362

ENVIRONMENT

  Equity Share Schemes
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities in England and Wales have plans to build houses under equity share schemes.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information for English local authorities is not available centrally. For information about Wales, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reviews his Department is carrying out in respect of the valuation and community charge tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Independent consultants will shortly undertake a review of valuation and community charge tribunals and make recommendations on the pay, conditions of service and grading of their staff.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will delay the water privatisation flotation until 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  No. We plan to offer the industry for sale to the public in November 1989.

  Redundant Land
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a breakdown both by individual local authorities and the latest available year of
  179
  the 54,000 acres of council-owned derelict and redundant land referred to in the 1987–88 report on the inner cities programme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The amount of unused and underused land owned by local authorities and entered on the land register at 30 June 1989 was 49,931 acres. I have arranged for a breakdown of this by individual local authorities to be placed in the Library today.

  Sewage Outfalls (North-West)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the intended frequency of routine storm water discharges from the three short sea outfalls along the Fylde coast is within the guidelines for disposal of sewage to the sea agreed in 1988 between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the water industry.

  Mr. Howard
  The North West water authority has applied for discharge consents in respect of a proposed long sea outfall and three associated storm water overflows to bring bathing waters along the Fylde coast up to EC standards, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will consider, as part of their assessment, the authority's proposals for dealing with storm water in the light of its published "Guidance on Long Sea Outfalls"—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contacts his Department has had with the North West water authority over proposals to construct a long sea outfall at Rossall point on the Fylde coast.

  Mr. Howard
  North West Water applied to my Department on 20 December 1988 for consent to discharge sewage effluent into the Lune Deep off Morecambe Bay from a proposed new long sea outfall at Rossall point. The applications are still being considered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on the differences between the top and bottom currents at and around the likely areas of impact in the Lune Deep of the proposed long sea outfall discharge at Rossall point on the Fylde coast.

  Mr. Howard
  The North West water authority has supplied information to my Department both on top and bottom currents which were measured at locations related to the proposed Lune Deep outfall site. The water authority has pointed out that the measurements are consistent with the hydrodynamic model of the scheme and with observed sediment transport patterns.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what standards are laid down for installation of air conditioning in office buildings;

  (2) what standards are laid down for the operation of air conditioning in office buildings.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are no requirements in the Building Regulations 1985 which relate directly to the installation and operation of air conditioning equipment. The code of practice in widespread use is BS 5750: 1979, which covers the design installation and maintenance of such systems.

  River Pollution (North-West)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call for a report on all river pollution incidents in the north-west in the last 12 months; if he will publish(a) details of such incidents and (b) action taken as a result of such incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for the control of river pollution in the north-west rests with the North West water authority. The authority reports incidents in its annual reports, and it is for them to take decisions on the action needed in individual cases. The only exceptions to this would be incidents caused by the authority itself. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution investigates incidents of this kind which are brought to its attention and takes appropriate action. In addition it is, of course, open to anyone to take independent action in any particular case.

  Water Authorities (Debt Write-offs)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the proposed debt write-offs for each water authority prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Howard
  These will be determined nearer to flotation. I refer to the fuller answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on 18 May.

  Vacant Council Property
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report, the 30 local authorities in England with the largest number of council-owned properties vacant, at the most recent date, with the number in each case.

  Mr. Trippier
  Based on local authorities' housing investment programme returns for April 1988, the list is as follows:

  Number vacant

  (1) Liverpool

  5,416

  (2) Manchester

  5,166

  (3) Sandwell

  3,062

  (4) Sheffield

  2,856

  (5) Hackney

  2,692

  (6) Tower Hamlets

  2,526

  (7) Birmingham

  2,339

  (8) Sunderland

  2,106

  (9) Salford

  1,993

  (10) Newham

  1,961

  (11) Southwark

  1,910

  (12) Wolverhampton

  1,737

  (13) Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,651

  (14) Leeds

  1,486

  (15) Islington

  1,403

  (16) Kirklees

  1,402

  (17) Bradford

  1,262

  (18) Leicester

  1,220

  (19) Lambeth

  1,156

  (20) Oldham

  1,129

  (21) Rochdale

  1,062

  (22) Kingston upon Hull

  1,019

  (23) Nottingham

  1,016

  (24) Wandsworth

  994

  (25) North Tyneside

  991

  (26) Walsall

  986

  (27) Gateshead

  949

  (28) Lewisham

  943

  (29) Dudley

  928

  (30) Greenwich

  911

  Council Property (Squatters)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the 30 local authorities in England with the largest number of council-owned properties occupied by squatters, with the number in each case.

  Mr. Trippier
  Based on local authorities' housing investment programme returns for April 1988, the list is as follows:

  Dwellings in unlicensed occupation

  (1) Southwark

  1,672

  (2) Lambeth

  1,170

  (3) Hackney

  953

  (4) Islington

  449

  (5) Tower Hamlets

  426

  (6) Camden

  340

  (7) Brent

  229

  (8) Haringey

  165

  (9) Lewisham

  163

  (10) Hammersmith and Fulham

  143

  (II) Westminster

  98

  (12) Ealing

  79

  (13) Manchester

  69

  (14) Liverpool

  67

  (15) Wandsworth

  65

  (16) Newham

  52

  (17) Waltham Forest

  48

  (18) Greenwich

  27

  (19) Enfield

  22

  (20) Hounslow

  18

  (21) Merton

  18

  (22) Forest Heath

  15

  (23) Birmingham

  14

  (24) Kingston upon Thames

  8

  (25) Bromley

  7

  (26) Redbridge

  7

  (27) Kensington and Chelsea

  6

  (28) Barking and Dagenham

  6

  (29) Bristol

  6

  (30) Richmond upon Thames

  5

  Water Authorities' Accounts
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the water authorities' unaudited accounts for 1988–89 will be made available.

  Mr. Howard
  The water authorities unaudited accounts for 1988–89 are to be placed on public deposit in accordance with statutory provisions tomorrow morning. I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. The annual reports and audited accounts will be published later in the summer and laid before Parliament at that time.

  Business Rate (Suffolk and Norfolk)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he makes of the unified business rate in Suffolk and Norfolk.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer, 3 July 1989]: We estimate that if the uniform business rate had taken effect this year it would have been about 35 pence in the pound in England.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to seek to place a duty on local authorities to compensate community charge and business rate payers for service which falls below an agreed minimum standard.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer, 3 July 1989]: No. Simple, clear community charge bills will enable chargepayers to judge the efficiency and value for money with which local authorities provide services. Chargepayers will be able to express in the political and electoral processes any concern that they may feel about standards of service. In future, the business rate poundage will be set nationally, but authorities will have a duty to consult representatives of business in their area about their expenditure proposals and in that way business ratepayers will be able to make their views known.

  Community Charge (Rebate)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce details of the rebate of up to 80 per cent. of the community charge to be made available to persons on low incomes; and when information on how to apply for such rebates will be sent to local authorities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The detailed arrangements for rebating the community charge are set out in the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989 which were circulated to all authorities at the end of May. Application procedures, within the terms of these regulations, are a matter for local authorities themselves.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of all discussions that have taken place between either Mr. Waterstone and Mr. Gwyn Jones of the Welsh Development Agency's office in Cardiff and representatives of merchant banks and large accounting firms concerning management buyouts and other possible ways of privatising the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The chairman and chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency have had no discussions at any stage with merchant banks or large accounting firms about a management buyout of the agency either in whole or in part. The Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 obliges the agency to seek to increase private sector involvement in its operations. To this end, possible means of stimulating such involvement are kept continuously under review and professional advisers of all sorts have been involved in discussions with the agency over a period of several years.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the amount of advance factory building that has taken place by the west Wales region of the Welsh Development Agency for each year from 1983–84 to the present time; what are the future plans; and what percentage each year the figures represent of the total factory building programme throughout Wales by the Welsh Development Agency.
  183
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Area completed in West Wales1 000' sq ft

  Percentage of total Agency build

  1983–84

  155

  19·9

  1984–85

  70

  22·0

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  5

  0·1

  1987–88

  —

  —

  1988–89

  28

  2·8

  1 The year on year figures are not comparable due to change in the agency's regional office structure in July 1988 which removed responsibility for urban areas, including Llanelli, from the west Wales region·

  As regards future plans the agency intends to start work on 62,000 sq ft of factory space in the current financial year.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if there are any proposals in any of the other regional offices of the Welsh Development Agency similar to the management buy-out proposals revealed in west Wales on 29 June; and whether he will provide details.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Neither I nor the board of the Welsh Development Agency are aware of any such proposals.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instruct(a) the chairman and (b) the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency to issue public statements concerning the proposed management buy out proposals of senior executives of the west Wales Welsh Development Agency sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency has already issued a statement, which I fully endorse.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the number of meetings and the dates(a) the senior executives of the Welsh Development Agency, west Wales sector, (b) the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and (c) the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency had with interested parties concerning management buyout proposals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the documents concerning the proposed west Wales Welsh Development Agency management buyout proposals; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the suspension of two of the Welsh Development Agency's west Wales senior officials.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. This is a matter for the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his estimate of the assets of the west Wales sector of the Welsh Development Agency involved in the proposed management buyout; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the value of the Welsh Development Agency property portfolio (a) in west Wales, (b) in each of the subregional sectors of the Welsh Development Agency and (c) in Wales as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The informaton is as follows:
  184

  Welsh Development Agency property portfolio valuation as at 31 March 1989

  £ million

  West Wales

  5·681

  South Wales Valleys

  75·782

  South Wales East

  63·305

  North East Wales

  50·417

  North West Wales

  6·584

  South Wales West

  47·946

  Wales Total

  249·715

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to sell assets of the Welsh Development Agency in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency has set itself a property sales target of £15 million for the current financial year.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans there are to increase factory building by the Welsh Development Agency in the west Wales sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency intends to start work on 62,000 sq ft of advance factory and workshop space in west Wales in the current financial year. This is more than double the area completed in 1988–89 and compares with an average area of 24,000 sq ft completed in the three years before 1979–80.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of(a) T. R. Jones Ltd., Ammanford, (b) Dinefwr Enterprise Company, (c) Mainport Group, Pembroke Dock, (d) Pembrokeshire Business Initiative, (e) Morgan Marine, Llandybie, (f) Avon Inflatables, Onfen, (g) Milford Haven Port Authority and (h) Delanair Ltd. have received Welsh Development Agency financial or consultancy assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Four of the organisations listed—Dinefwr Enterprise Company, Mainport Group, Pembrokeshire Business Initiative and Morgan Marine—have received financial or consultancy assistance from the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings he has had with the(a) chairman of the Welsh Development Agency,

  (b) chief executive and (c) west Wales Welsh Development Agency executives in (i) 1988 and (ii) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I frequently meet the chairman and the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency. I am not aware of having met the agency's west Wales executives.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any report of the meeting of west Wales executives and the chairman and chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I received no such report until earlier this week when the chairman of the WDA informed me that the meeting had taken place.
  185
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what disciplinary measures he has instituted within his Department on the matter of proposed management buy-outs in the west Wales Welsh Development Agency following the suspension of two senior officers in west Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None, as none is needed.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last visited the(a) headquarters and (b) west Wales offices of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I last visited the Welsh Development Agency's headquarters on 2 May. I have never visited the agency's west Wales offices.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was(a) the number and (b) the value of mortgages (£000s) on completed disposals for (i) full ownership and (ii) shared ownership by each local authority in Wales, and for Wales as a whole during (1) 1980–81, (2) 1981–82, (3) 1982–83, (4) 1983–84, (5) 1984–85,

  (6) 1985–86, (7) 1986–87, (8) 1987–88 and (9) 1988–89;

  (2) what was the area of land made available to private developers under licence for building for sale schemes by each local authority in Wales, and for Wales as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i)1988–89;

  (3) what was the capital sum received from disposals completed during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89 by each local authority in Wales, and for Wales as a whole, (i) to sitting tenants and (ii) to others for (1) full ownership (2) shared ownership;

  (4) what was the number of admitted shared ownership claims withdrawn from each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89;

  (5) what was the number of claims to right to shared ownership leases received by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89;

  (6) what was the number of disposals of dwellings built and financed by private developers on local authority owned land for (a) full ownership and (b) shared ownership as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (7) what was the total number of completed disposals of (a) flats and (b) houses for (i) full ownership and (ii) shared ownership by each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole during (1) 1980–81, (2) 1981–82, (3) 1982–83, (4) 1983–84, (5) 1984–85, (6) 1985–86, (7) 1986–87, (8) 1987–88 and (9) 1988–89.

  Mr. Grist
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mid Wales Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has discussed privatisation plans with the board of the Development Board for Rural Wales, Mid Wales Development.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No, but I encourage the board to consider any opportunities for increasing the effectiveness of its activities through greater private sector involvement.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is aware of any management buyout plans at Mid Wales Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am not aware of any such proposals.

  Welsh Language Teaching
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish his proposals for the teaching of Welsh in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Secretary of State for Wales has today published his proposals for Welsh in the national curriculum. These proposals are based on the recommendations contained in the final report of the working group set up by the Secretary of State in April 1988 to consider appropriate attainment targets and programmes of study for Welsh. The proposals are being distributed widely for consultation. Copies will be sent to all primary and secondary schools and made available to governing bodies. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Census Statistics
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what, further to the Under-Secretary's reply to he hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on 26 May, is his policy on the extent to which the presentation of census statistics will be described in terms of postcodes such as to make possible access to individual household data by computer comparison with other registers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The policy of successive Governments has been to take all practicable steps to protect the confidentiality of census information on individual people and households. In its White Paper on the 1991 Census of Population, Cm 430, published in July 1988, the Government confirmed that, in releasing the statistics from census, whether using postcodes or not, all possible steps will be taken to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information about identifiable individuals. The means of presenting statistical summaries for small areas from the 1991 census are at present under discussion.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate a programme of research into the control of head lice infestation in schools.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is currently carrying out a feasibility study to identify the broad issues of concern in
  187
  the school health services and the problem of head lice infestation is one of the issues that we are looking at. Once this study is complete we shall consider what, if any, action is needed for any or all of these services, including the need for any research or advice on this problem.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he gives to area health authorities concerning the containment of the problem of head lice infestation in schools.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the control of head lice infestation among pupils lies with individual health authorities through the school health service. No specific advice is given to health authorities; it is for them to determine the policy for dealing with outbreaks of infestation in the light of local circumstances.

  Every school has a named school nurse to advise and help on this problem. Many have stopped routine head inspections and are now adopting more positive practices through health education programmes and advice to parents on head lice infestation and how to deal with it. By increasing parental awareness, cases of infestation can be dealt with more promptly.

  Abortions (Hemel Hempstead)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions have been carried out at Hemel Hempstead general hospital in each of the last four calendar years; under which provisions of the Abortion Act they were carried out; and what was(a) the age and marital status of the mother, (b) gestational age of the foetus and (c) the abortion method used.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested cannot be released on the grounds of maintaining confidentiality. The readily available data for usual residents of North-West Hertfordshire district health authority are shown in the tables.

  Table 1

  Legal abortions, usual residents North West Hertfordshire DHA, 1984 to 1987, numbers and age of mother

  Age

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Under 16

  17

  15

  10

  14

  16–19

  179

  186

  150

  146

  20–24

  194

  180

  180

  196

  25–34

  203

  210

  187

  208

  35–44

  95

  108

  94

  92

  45+

  4

  1

  4

  1

  Not stated

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  692

  700

  625

  657

  Table 2

  Legal abortions, usual residents North West Hertfordshire DHA, 1984 to 1987, marital status, previous live and stillborn children1, area of termination (distinguishing regional health authority of usual residents and category of premises).

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Marital Status

  Single

  425

  415

  396

  424

  Married

  195

  196

  166

  154

  Other

  72

  89

  63

  79

  Parity1

  0

  433

  428

  415

  421

  1–3

  232

  250

  193

  208

  4+

  18

  16

  13

  23

  Unknown

  9

  6

  4

  5

  188

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  RHA of termination

  Home NHS

  222

  197

  145

  202

  RHA Non-NHS

  3

  12

  53

  41

  Other NHS

  38

  42

  24

  28

  RHA Non-NHS

  429

  449

  403

  386

  Hospices
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of time spent in a hospice by a terminally ill patient.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information is not available centrally.

  Delta Te Immune Support Therapy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the sale of Delta Te immune support therapy;

  (2) what action is being taken under the Medicines Act 1968 to prohibit the sale of Delta Te immune support therapy;

  (3) what representations his Department has received about the sale of Delta Te immune support therapy.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department is pursuing inquiries into the supply of Delta Te promoted for the treatment of AIDS, and the managing director of the company concerned has been interviewed. Representations have been received from journal and television reporters, who are currently assisting our inquiries. The product has not been licensed for supply as a medicine in this country, so any sale as a medicine would be illegal. On the information that we have there is no evidence to support the claims being made for the substance. To prevent the sales of such products we shall not hesitate to take prosecution proceedings where, on legal advice, there is prima facie evidence that the terms of the Medicines Act have been breached.

  South-East Thames RHA
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action the South-East Thames regional health authority will be taking on the basis of the recommendations of the report it commissioned by Touche Ross Management Consultants into the functions of the salaries and wages department in each of the local authorities in its region; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the cost to the South-East Thames regional health authority of the report it recently commissioned Touche Ross Management Consultants to undertake into the functions of the salaries and wages department in each of the local health authorities in its region.

  Mr. Mellor
  The report reviewed with district health authorities in the region the paymaster services carried out, covering both payroll and creditor payment functions.

  The cost of the report is a matter for the regional health authority. I understand that action plans are being agreed between the region and the district health authorities and the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the regional health authority for more information.

  Adverse Drug Reactions
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report those European Community directives which relate to the under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are not aware of any specific reference to the under-reporting of adverse drug reactions in the European Community directives concerned with medicinal products.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 2 March, column 319, what investigative action is taken when there is concern about possible under-reporting of serious adverse reactions.

  Mr. Mellor
  It depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. In general terms, such investigations would include scrutiny of all relevant documentation, obtaining the licence holder's response to salient issues and, where necessary, meetings and interviews with senior representatives of the licence holder.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 2 March, column 319, from what sources his Department has received information which has led to concern about possible under-reporting of serious adverse reactions.

  Mr. Mellor
  From a television programme, the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South himself and professional analysis by the licensing authority of data submitted by the licence holder in connection with other licensing matters.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct an urgent national survey to ascertain the range of charges being made by opticians for eye tests.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department hopes to survey various aspects of sight tests, probably later this year.

  Immigration
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate where immigrants into the United Kingdom from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan for each year since 1970 have settled within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 28 June 1989]: I regret that data are not available in the form requested. However, estimates of the numbers of people resident in Great Britain in 1986 and 1987 who were born in the New Commonwealth or Pakistan, and who were of West Indian, African, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic origin are shown in the following tables.

  One table gives these estimated numbers resident in Great Britain who had entered the United Kingdom in each year between 1970 and 1985. The other table gives these estimated numbers by standard region/country and metropolitan county of residence for those who had entered the United Kingdom between 1970 and 1985, inclusive.
  190
  These estimates have been obtained by grossing up the results of the 1986 and 1987 labour force surveys. More detailed analyses would be unreliable because of sampling variability.

  Estimated numbers of people resident in Great Britain in 1986–87 who were born in the New Commonwealth or Pakistan and who were of West Indian, African, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic origin

  Year of entry into United Kingdom

  Estimated number (thousands)

  1970

  35

  1971

  32

  1972

  55

  1973

  23

  1974

  27

  1975

  40

  1976

  40

  1977

  22

  1978

  27

  1979

  29

  1980

  23

  1981

  21

  1982

  31

  1983

  29

  1984

  21

  1985

  20

  1970–85

  475

  Year of entry into United Kingdom: 1970–85, inclusive

  Region/country and metropolitan county of residence

  Estimated number (thousands)

  North

  9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  39

  East Midlands

  35

  East Anglia

  7

  South East

  264

  South West

  3

  West Midlands

  66

  North West

  40

  Wales

  6

  Scotland

  7

  Great Britain

  476

  Tyne and Wear

  5

  South Yorkshire

  4

  West Yorkshire

  33

  Greater London

  204

  West Midlands

  55

  Greater Manchester

  28

  Merseyside

  3

  All metropolitan counties

  333

  (Totals for Great Britain do not agree because of rounding).

  Death Statistics
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the number of British people who die each year from diseases related to environmental pollution; and what are the Government's plans to reduce that number.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: There is no clear evidence that deaths occur as a result of current levels of pollution of the environment by man with chemical agents. Past exposure to high levels of air pollutants may still have some influence on current death rates, but discharges to the environment are now controlled so as to provide large safety margins or, in the case of substances potentially toxic at very low dose, by ensuring a very small risk.
  191
  There is no scientific basis for estimating the total impact of many substances occurring simultaneously in the environment at trace levels, but it is considered to be small compared with lifestyle factors such as smoking. The Government, on advice from a number of advisory committees, monitor for possible environmental causes of disease and will act to prevent or limit potentially harmful exposures whenever they are identified. In the meanwhile, the Government encourage prudence in the use of chemicals or potentially polluting technologies. In particular the Government are engaged in updating the arrangements for pollution control to ensure that these are integrated, wide-ranging and effective.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Acid Parties
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of his policy towards the policing of acid parties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to questions from the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) on 29 June, at columns 517–18.

  Risley Remand Centre
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were transferred from Risley remand centre after the recent disturbances and roof top protests; how many of them were from Liverpool; where they were transferred to; and how many complaints have been received from prisoners or their representatives who have been transferred about their treatment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 255 prisoners were transferred to other prisons:

  60 to Leeds

  58 to Liverpool

  41 to Manchester

  35 to Durham

  22 to Shrewsbury

  20 to Preston

  12 to Birmingham

  7 to Hull

  One of these prisoners has submitted a petition complaining about conditions at Risley and nine others have complained by petition and two by letters to hon. Members about matters related to their transfer. In addition, some transferred prisoners were among those who gave written or oral evidence to the inquiry into the disturbance at Risley.

  To establish how many of the transferred prisoners were from Liverpool and how many made complaints about treatment in evidence to the inquiry would entail disproportionate cost. I am advised that when the disturbance started about 45 per cent. of those held in Risley were from Liverpool.

  Football Matches
  Mr. Eddie Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the figures of football-related arrests(a) for the season 1988–89 for all English clubs and (b) as a percentage of total attendances at football matches during that season.
  192
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers is collating returns from police forces relating to arrests, ejections and attendances at all Football League matches in England and Wales during the 1988–89 season. These figures are expected to be available soon.

  Immigration
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any plans afoot to improve the staffing situation at the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service office, based at the Scottish Office in Glasgow, to alleviate the delays in hearing immigration appeals in Scotland.

  Mr. Renton
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 26 June at column 322.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Liverpool Passport Office
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to relocate the Liverpool passport office to an area of the country needing additional jobs.

  Mr. Renton
  I appreciate the concern and irritation felt generally as a result of recent strike action at the Liverpool passport office. There are, however, no current plans to relocate this office. As I indicated on 14 June in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) at column 462 we shall be reviewing the location and number of the regional passport offices in general later this year.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to what breaches of discipline have been alleged against Superintendent James Kelly; and what action has been taken.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that in October 1986 Detective Superintendent Kelly was charged with four offences of discreditable conduct and was reprimanded on each charge. He was not a member of the serious crime squad.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to on how many occasions complaints have been received against Detective Sergeant Michael Hornby; and what action has been taken in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that a number of complaints have been recorded against detective sergeant Hornby since 1974. All the complaints have been fully investigated. In only one instance, in 1980, did he face formal disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary records are destroyed after seven years.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief
  193
  constable of the West Midlands as to during which years Detective Sergeant Brian Morton and Detective Constables Martin Lambert and Graham Stephens were members of the West Midlands serious crime squad.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that detective sergeant Morton was a member of the serious crime squad from March 1973 until February 1976. Detective constables Lambert and Stephen were not members of the serious crime squad.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many of the officers involved in investigations into the Paul Dandy case were also involved in questioning those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that no officer was involved in the Paul Dandy case and also in questioning of those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many of the officers involved in investigations into the case of Mr. Ronnie Boldon were involved in questioning those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that one officer was involved in the Ronnie Boldon case and also in questioning of those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to what action was taken against the police officers responsible for assaulting junior Patrick Williams in connection with attempts to procure a confession.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that three officers were convicted at Birmingham crown court on 1 November 1983 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Detective sergeant Morton was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment (six months suspended for two years). Detective constables Stephen and Lambert were sentenced to nine months imprisonment (four and a half months suspended for two years). The officers subsequently faced disciplinary proceedings and were dismissed from the force on 4 November 1983.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many complaints have been received against officers of the West Midlands serious crime squad for each year since 1979; and what action has been taken in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand form the chief constable of the West Midlands police that this information is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief 194
  constable of the West Midlands on what action was taken against the officers responsible for obtaining a confession from Mr. Derek Gordon for a murder of which he was subsequently acquitted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that an investigation into Mr. Gordon's complaint was conducted by a senior officer of the Metropolitan police in 1985 under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. Two officers were subsequently charged with disciplinary offences and were fined. Other officers were given advice by their supervisory officers in connection with unsatisfactory standards of documentation.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many of the officers involved in investigations into the case of Derek Gordon were also involved in questioning those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that two officers were involved in the Derek Gordon case and also in the questioning of those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how long police cadet Adrian Dart remained in the force after testifying against three of his colleagues convicted of trying to extort confessions by violence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that police constable Dart resigned from the West Midlands police force four months after three officers were convicted in November 1983 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

  Hospital Patients (Voting)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider making arrangements for those admitted to hospital at short notice, who are registered on the appropriate electoral rolls, but do not have sufficient notice of their admission to vote by post, proxy or in person, to vote; what representations he has received about hospital patients being disfranchised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on 21 June 1989 at column 131. Amendment of the regulations about absent voting so as to cover those unexpectedly admitted to hospital is one of the options that we are considering for easing the application procedures.

  Mr. Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds of the security provided to Mr. Salman Rushdie; and when such security started.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  On 14 February 1989 the Metropolitan police decided to provide Mr. Rushdie with
  195
  protection. This followed the threat to his life made by the Ayatollah Khomeini. It would not be sensible to disclose information about police protection which would indicate its scale in a particular case.

  Football Grounds (Policing)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the cost of policing football grounds in 1990–91.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made no such estimate. As to earlier years, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 15 June at column 507.

  Privacy
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to announce the name of the chairman and the terms of reference of the committee to review privacy and related matters.

  Mr. Hurd
  Mr. David Calcutt QC, Master of Magdalene college, Cambridge has accepted the offer of the chairmanship of the committee to review privacy and related matters. The terms of reference will be:"In the light of recent public concern about intrusions into the private lives of individuals by certain sections of the press, to consider what measures (whether legislative or otherwise) are needed to give further protection to individual privacy from the activities of the press and improve recourse against the press for the individual citizen, taking account of existing remedies, including the law on defamation and breach of confidence; and to make recommendations."

  A further announcement will be made about the membership of the committee. We understand that the chairman will meanwhile be issuing early invitations to submit evidence. We have asked the chairman to complete his report speedily.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of take-up by pensioners of (i) income support and (ii) housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) on 8 February at column 713.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of pensioners in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom who are in receipt of retirement pension and income support, for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: The number of individuals in receipt of both retirement pension and supplementary benefit for each year since 1981 is as follows:

  Scotland (000s)

  Great Britain (000s)

  December 1981

  141

  1,643

  December 1982

  140

  1,698

  December 1983

  134

  1,565

  December 1984

  140

  1,578

  February 1986

  137

  1,599

  May 1987

  149

  1,620

  196
  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries 1981–1987.

  Note: Figures for the United Kingdom are not available. The number of persons in receipt of both retirement pension and income support is not yet available.

  Benefit Refusals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire all the grounds of refusal of unemployment-related benefits in a manner consistent with the reporting of the chief adjudication officer; and if he will give the number of claims disallowed on each ground for the years 1978, 1983 and 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The grounds of refusal of unemployment-related benefits as listed by the chief adjudication officer in his annual report on adjudication standards are:

  Grounds of refusal

  1. that the day claimed for is a normal idle day for the employment for which the claimant is registered; that the claimant has worked to the full extent that is normal for that week;

  2. that the claimant has left his employment voluntarily;

  3. that the claimant has been dismissed from his employment because of misconduct;

  4. that the claimant has payment in lieu of notice or remuneration;

  5. that the claim to benefit was delayed;

  6. that the claimant may not be regarded as unemployed;

  7. 11

  8. that the claimant is not available for employment;

  9. that the claimant is engaged in employment;

  10. that the claimant is placing unreasonable restrictions on his availability for employment;

  11. that the claimant has refused suitable employment;

  12. that the claimant has terminated a course of training prematurely;

  13. that the claimant is claiming for days of a recognised or customary holiday from his employment;

  14. that the claimant is a seasonal worker;

  15. other categories.

  1 The chief adjudication officer also includes in his list at column 7 "Dependency". This refers to claims made for dependency addition to unemployment benefit and is not a ground for refusal of unemployment benefit.

  Note:

  Information about the number of claims for Supplementary Benefit disallowed on each ground is not held for the years 1978 and 1983. Details of Supplementary Benefit an Income Support claims disallowed in 1988 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Information about the number of disallowed claims for Unemployment Benefit in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire is not available. However, the table shows the relevant figures for the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which includes Doncaster and Mexborough.
  197

  Disallowed claims for unemployment benefit in the Yorkshire and Humberside region for the years 1978, 1983 and 1988

  Question

  1978

  1983

  1988

  Normal idle day and full extent normal

  157

  1,989

  3,365

  Leaving voluntary

  45,958

  24,883

  25,673

  Misconduct

  15,674

  9,715

  8,471

  Payment in lieu of notice or remuneration

  10,008

  23,098

  16,041

  Delayed claim

  2,116

  9,612

  12,256

  Whether unemployed

  1,426

  5,323

  5,441

  Dependency benefit

  2,207

  2,333

  533

  Availability

  2,417

  7,948

  8,341

  Engaged in employment

  2,047

  19,463

  5,204

  Restricted availability

  459

  803

  2,212

  Refusal of suitable employment

  478

  158

  264

  Premature termination of training

  38

  84

  537

  Customary holiday

  176

  1,013

  1,169

  Seasonal worker

  308

  363

  591

  Others

  1,597

  5,607

  5,249

  TOTALS

  85,066

  112,392

  95,347

  Family Credit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of families now in receipt of family credit living in areas covered by his Department's Social Security offices in(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough; and what were the figures for 12 months ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of June 1989 the number of families receiving family credit who, at the time their awards were made, were living in the areas covered by the relevant local social security offices was as follows:

  Number

  Doncaster (East)

  858

  Doncaster (West)

  553

  Wath-on-Dearne

  183

  Comparable information for 12 months ago is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will announce the social fund allocation for the new office in New Malden and also the revised allocation for Kingston following the closure of Surbiton local office on 29 June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 29 June 1989 a new local office in New Malden opened following the closure of Surbiton local office which also affected the boundaries for Kingston. Accordingly the social fund allocation for Kingston has been adjusted. The revised allocations effective from 29 June 1989 are:

  Loans £

  Grants £

  New Malden

  62,213

  29,006

  Kingston

  111,758

  52,118

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average waiting time for claimants' requests for a loan under the social fund to be processed in each social security benefit office in Greater Manchester.
  198
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 June 1989]: The table gives details for budgeting and crisis loans of the average clearance times achieved during May 1989.

  Clearance times for loans—Greater Manchester

  Days

  Office

  1Budget loans Crisis

  loans

  Farnworth

  2·71

  2·68

  Hyde

  2·67

  0·81

  Manchester (Central)

  2·47

  0·56

  Manchester (Cheetham)

  6·55

  1·57

  Manchester (Chorlton)

  15·82

  0·62

  Manchester (Failsworth)

  9·28

  103

  Manchester (Longsight)

  8·20

  0·60

  Manchester (Middleton)

  —0·12

  1·67

  Manchester (Openshaw)

  14·01

  1·29

  Manchester (Rusholme)

  16·84

  1·45

  Manchester (Sale)

  11·12

  0·32

  Manchester (Wythenshawe)

  12·13

  0·59

  Oldham

  5·68

  0·66

  Salford (North)

  5·76

  0·40

  Salford (South)

  18·32

  0·26

  Stockport (North)

  6·77

  0·27

  Stockport (South)

  1·20

  0·46

  1 The clearance times for budget loans are net figures. These are arrived at by deducting 5 days from the gross clearance time.The 5-day adjustment is a national average figure intended to allow for the time taken by applicants to respond to the offer of a loan.

  Hospice Patients
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many questions there are on an income support application form; and how many of them would be relevant to a hospice patient.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Hospice patients will be asked to complete one of two claim forms, depending on their age. These forms contain, on average, some 170 questions. Although every question is relevant to the assessment of entitlement to income support, not all questions will be relevant to individual claimants. Hospice patients or their appointees, like other claimants, will be able to follow the clear signposting throughout the forms which indicate when questions or sections may be missed.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will establish procedures which provide that income support payments for accommodation could be paid directly to hospices when the recipient of the income support is a hospice patient.

  Mr. Scott
  There are already established procedures for the payment of income support direct to a hospice. These apply when a claimant who is liable for an accommodation charge has fallen into debt due to a failure to budget for that charge, and it is in the best interests of the claimant to make the payment direct.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to amend the regulations so that when hospice patients are awarded income support due to the additional costs, those payments are made from the date of entry to the hospice.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in the last year for which figures are available, how many hospice patients became entitled to and received income support because of the additional cost of
  199
  the hospice; and how many hospice patients continued to receive income support for which they had a previous entitlement;

  (2) in the last year for which figures are available, how much income support was paid to hospice patients to help with their hospice costs;

  (3) what estimates he has of the number of hospice patients who become eligible for income support on entering a hospice but do not receive it because they die before their claim is prepared and processed;

  (4) what information he has on the proportion of hospice costs that are met by income support payments to hospice patients.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. Income support is paid to terminally ill people according to the type of care they are receiving, and no distinction is made between hospices and nursing homes.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for speeding up the process of application for income support for hospice patients.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no plans at present to institute special procedures for people claiming income support from hospices. The process of application for income support is designed to gather the required information to allow for the accurate assessment of benefit entitlement and payment in all cases, wherever the claimant is resident.

  Income Support Forms
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated average time required to complete an income support application form.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No estimates have been made.

  Mrs. S. E. Hart
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to pay Mrs. S. E. Hart of 21 Greenswood road, Brixham, Devon, the benefits, including widowed mother's allowance and child benefit, to which she is entitled, dating from 16 August 1983.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mrs. Hart did not claim widow's benefit until 1988. That claim was backdated to 28 July 1987, the maximum period allowed under legislation. The position for the period before that is still being investigated and we will write to my hon. Friend as soon as these investigations are completed.

  Mrs. Hart was in receipt of child benefit and one parent benefit from 1983 until her younger child left school.

  Disabled Persons
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in detail the benefits including telephone, travel, car, rates, etc., from public funds available to a registered disabled person over 90 years of age in receipt of a combined state and private pension totalling £68 per week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The help available to a registered disabled person will vary according to the individual's needs and 200
  circumstances, and it is not possible to give the information requested. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, he may wish to write to me so that the relevant details can be provided.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from British citizens, temporarily absent from the United Kingdom but liable to pay income tax in the United Kingdom, that their children should remain entitled to child benefit during their absence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been no recent representations.

  People temporarily absent solely because they are in employment outside Great Britain can receive child benefit if at least half their earnings from their employment are liable to United Kingdom income tax.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what he ascribes the fact that the staff effort required to process each application to the housing benefit transitional payments unit was three times as great as had been expected.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 3 July at column 40–41.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will instruct the housing benefit transitional payments unit to accept late applications.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Late applications will be considered by the transitional payments unit if there are good reasons for the delay.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will introduce measures to enable single mothers to compel financial support from the fathers concerned who are unwilling to make voluntary contributions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Arrangements for single mothers to obtain maintenance orders for their children are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. Two measures introduced this year will enable more mothers to obtain maintenance. First, the time limit for starting proceedings has been abolished, and second, DNA testing is available to determine paternity where it is in dispute.

  When a mother claims income support the Department tries to obtain a contribution from the father, and can take proceedings if he refuses to make payments which he can afford. However, the Government are concerned that more fathers should meet their responsibility to support their children. We have therefore introduced revised procedures to make this work more effective.

  Council House Tenants
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has as to the additional level of benefit entitlement(a) single and (b) married

  201
  council tenants would receive if their only source of income was the basic state retirement pension, based on the average council house rent and rates in (a) England (b) Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 May 1989]: Information is not available in the exact form requested.

  Table A. Until October 1989

  England and Wales

  Basic RP £

  Income support £

  Rent rebate £

  Rate rebate £

  Single pensioner aged less than 80

  43·60

  2·50

  17·90

  6·32

  Single pensioner aged 80 or over

  43·85

  4·75

  17·90

  6·32

  Pensioner couple, both aged less than 80

  69·80

  2·05

  17·90

  6·32

  Pensioner couple, both aged 80 or over

  70·30

  4·00

  17·90

  6·32

  Table B. From October 1989

  Single pensioner aged less than 75

  43·60

  2·50

  17·90

  6·32

  Single pensioner aged 75 to 79

  43·60

  5·00

  17·90

  6·32

  Single pensioner aged 80 or over

  43·85

  7·25

  17·90

  6·32

  Pensioner couple, both aged less than 75

  69·80

  2·05

  17·90

  6·32

  Pensioner couple, at least one aged 75 to 79

  69·80

  5·55

  17·90

  6·32

  Pensioner couple, both aged 80 or over

  70·30

  7·50

  17·90

  6·32

  Notes:

  1.For the pensioner couples it is assumed that the wife's retirement pension is based on her husband's contributions.

  2. No savings over £3,000: no non-dependants; no ineligible items included in rent and rates.

  3. From October 1989, an additional pensioner premium will be in force in both housing benefit and income support. This will increase IS entitlement by up to £2·50 a week for single pensioners and £3·50 for couples.

  4. All the examples show people entitled to income support. They are, therefore, entitled to maximum housing benefit, which is 100 per cent. of eligible rent and 80 per cent. of eligible rates.

  Loans and Community Care Grants
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East of 25 May,Official Report, column 683, and 12 June, Official Report, columns 282–83, he will list the percentages of (a) budgeting loans and (b) community care grants which were awarded to each of the

  Budgeting loans and community care grants for west Midlands county area percentage by client group 1988–89

  Per cent.

  (00)

  (01)

  (02)

  (03)

  (04)

  (05)

  (06)

  (07)

  (08)

  (09)

  (10)

  (11)

  (12)

  (13)

  (14)

  (15)1

  Birmingham (Bradford St)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·00

  0·52

  0·94

  5·22

  0·52

  3·66

  4·60

  41·00

  1·46

  2·51

  15·46

  18·29

  0·84

  4·28

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·00

  3·43

  4·00

  16·00

  1·14

  6·29

  10·86

  25·14

  1·71

  1·14

  5·14

  12·57

  1·71

  10·29

  0·00

  0·57

  Birmingham (Edgbaston)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·47

  0·66

  0·47

  4·28

  0·33

  2·44

  3·01

  45·04

  0·24

  1·69

  12·60

  24·21

  0·47

  4·04

  0·04

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·19

  4·46

  3·29

  10·66

  0·58

  1·55

  7·17

  23·26

  0·19

  1·94

  4·07

  33·72

  0·97

  6·59

  0·00

  1·36

  Birmingham (Erdington)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·43

  0·28

  0·24

  3·79

  0·09

  2·18

  1·52

  43·34

  0·81

  2·46

  12·46

  27·85

  0·76

  3·79

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·15

  3·90

  3·15

  18·17

  0·45

  2·85

  5·56

  26·43

  0·30

  1·35

  7·66

  21·77

  1·50

  5·41

  0·00

  1·35

  Birmingham (Handsworth)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·21

  0·46

  0·21

  3·42

  0·25

  2·25

  2·71

  46·77

  0·92

  3·50

  8·17

  27·01

  0·50

  3·63

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·00

  3·20

  1·71

  15·14

  0·85

  1·71

  11·51

  21·96

  0·43

  2·13

  5·33

  24·52

  2·56

  8·74

  0·00

  0·21

  Birmingham (Ladywood)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·00

  0·17

  0·34

  5·16

  0·11

  1·76

  4·03

  44·41

  0·79

  2·84

  12·76

  23·60

  0·74

  3·29

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·17

  4·74

  3·38

  15·06

  1·18

  1·52

  7·78

  21·83

  0·68

  0·51

  5·92

  25·89

  1·18

  9·48

  0·00

  1·02

  Birmingham (Northfield)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·45

  0·35

  015

  2·60

  0·15

  3·00

  2·50

  42·54

  0·65

  1·50

  16·72

  26·06

  0·30

  3·05

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·00

  10·22

  2·16

  28·49

  1·01

  1·29

  9·64

  20·29

  0·43

  0·43

  6·19

  12·81

  0·72

  3·74

  0·00

  2·59

  Birmingham (Perry Barr)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·30

  0·00

  0·30

  3·65

  0·30

  2·74

  2·66

  48·02

  1·44

  3·50

  19·98

  14·21

  0·91

  1·98

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·82

  4·89

  4·35

  26·63

  0·27

  3·26

  12·50

  17·39

  0·00

  1·63

  6·52

  11·14

  3·26

  6·52

  0·00

  0·82

  202
  However, taking the average council house rent and rates in England and Wales for people with no dependent children, additional income-related benefit for people whose only income is the basic state retirement pension, is set out in the tables.

  15 client groups defined by his Department for each of the 21 offices serving the West Midlands county area for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: The information requested in set out in the table for 23 offices in the West Midlands county area (excluding Coventry). The relevant information for the Coventry offices is given in my reply to the hon. Member on 15 June at columns 531–32.
  203

  (00)

  (01)

  (02)

  (03)

  (04)

  (05)

  (06)

  (07)

  (08)

  (09)

  (10)

  (11)

  (12)

  (13)

  (14)

  (15)1

  Birmingham (Ravenhurst)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·11

  0·11

  0·34

  5·67

  0·23

  2·95

  5·22

  36·96

  0·91

  3·85

  10·09

  26·98

  1·13

  5·44

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·35

  3·85

  3·50

  12·94

  0·70

  1·40

  8·74

  22·73

  1·05

  0·70

  5·24

  19·58

  3·15

  14·34

  0·00

  1·75

  Birmingham (South Yardley)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·28

  0·68

  0·40

  3·86

  0·40

  2·50

  2·21

  49·72

  0·68

  1·93

  20·77

  13·45

  0·68

  2·44

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·27

  8·75

  4·91

  22·41

  1·72

  3·32

  12·07

  24·01

  0·13

  0·93

  7·16

  7·96

  1 99

  3·45

  0·00

  0·93

  Birmingham (Sparkhill)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·80

  0·32

  0·96

  5·57

  0·16

  2·55

  5·25

  44·43

  0·96

  2·39

  14·01

  16·88

  1·11

  4·62

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·43

  4·27

  5·13

  11·54

  0·85

  3·42

  8·12

  26·92

  0·43

  0·85

  9·83

  1·41

  3·42

  8·97

  0·00

  1·17

  Birmingham (Washwood Heath)

  Budgeting Loans

  0·54

  0·42

  006

  3·27

  0·12

  2·50

  2·26

  48·22

  0·48

  2·62

  18·31

  16·94

  1·07

  3·21

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·21

  6·18

  4·05

  22·60

  0·21

  1·92

  11·51

  19·40

  0·43

  2·35

  8·32

  14·50

  1·71

  5·97

  0·00

  0·64

  Cannock

  Budgeting Loans

  0·99

  0·14

  0·99

  3·67

  0·28

  2·96

  2·68

  39·63

  1·55

  4·51

  26·52

  13·40

  1·41

  1·27

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·56

  0·56

  6·70

  11·17

  0·56

  3·91

  3·91

  30·73

  1·68

  1·68

  17·32

  11·73

  4·47

  4·47

  0·00

  0·56

  Dudley North

  Budgeting Loans

  0·22

  0·22

  0·39

  5·07

  0·33

  2·04

  2·65

  36·55

  1·27

  2·43

  24·37

  19·74

  1·54

  3·20

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·00

  1·85

  2·15

  12·31

  0·00

  1·85

  6·77

  22·15

  0 31

  0·62

  12·62

  30·15

  4·00

  4·31

  0·00

  0·92

  Dudley South

  Budgeting Loans

  0·16

  0·33

  0·00

  0·45

  0·00

  1·15

  1·98

  39·87

  0·99

  3·62

  24·22

  18·45

  0·99

  3·79

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·00

  5·11

  2·84

  22·73

  0·57

  0·00

  2·27

  22·16

  0·00

  1·14

  5·68

  28·41

  2·84

  5·68

  0·00

  0·57

  Lichfield

  Budgeting Loans

  0·00

  0·00

  0·46

  2·87

  0·69

  1·83

  1·83

  45·64

  1·26

  1·95

  25·80

  14·68

  0·46

  2·52

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·39

  3·53

  4·31

  18·04

  1·57

  3·53

  8·63

  23·14

  0·78

  3·53

  14·12

  10·59

  3·53

  3·92

  0·00

  0·39

  Nuneaton

  Budgeting Loans

  0·30

  0·10

  0·81

  3·25

  0·51

  3·05

  2·84

  51·07

  0·61

  1·42

  17·36

  14·62

  0·91

  3·15

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·93

  2·80

  2·80

  14·02

  0·47

  3·27

  11·68

  19 63

  0·93

  2·80

  14·02

  16·36

  3·74

  5·14

  0·00

  1·40

  Redditch

  Budgeting Loans

  0·18

  0·53

  0·53

  5·35

  1·07

  4·63

  1·07

  52·41

  0·71

  3·03

  17·29

  11·59

  0·36

  1 25

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·30

  16·91

  4·75

  46·88

  0·89

  1·78

  5·64

  9·79

  0·89

  0·59

  4·15

  4·45

  0·30

  2·67

  0·00

  0·59

  Smethwick

  Budgeting Loans

  0·57

  0·63

  0·00

  3·54

  0·06

  2·22

  1·71

  47·09

  0·89

  1·96

  18·61

  20·06

  0·32

  2·34

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·54

  7·24

  6·70

  15·55

  0·27

  1·07

  8·04

  24·93

  1·34

  2·14

  5·90

  21·18

  0·54

  3·22

  0·00

  1·34

  Walsall East

  Budgeting Loans

  0·36

  0·44

  0·98

  3·29

  0·18

  3·20

  2·49

  37·24

  0·53

  2·93

  29·96

  14·22

  1·16

  3·02

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·00

  7·22

  5·56

  23·61

  0·56

  5·28

  13·06

  15·56

  0·28

  0·83

  9·17

  8·89

  2·22

  6·39

  0·00

  1·39

  Walsall West

  Budgeting Loans

  0·41

  0·21

  0·96

  5·08

  0·41

  2·54

  3·85

  41·28

  1·37

  2·75

  20·88

  16·07

  0·96

  3·23

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·23

  5·96

  5·05

  12·61

  0·69

  5·28

  8·03

  34·40

  0·69

  1·83

  8·72

  12·16

  1 61

  1·61

  0·00

  1·15

  West Bromwich

  Budgeting Loans

  0·24

  0·00

  0·12

  3·80

  0·24

  1·31

  1·31

  38·52

  1·66

  2·73

  28·43

  18·04

  1·13

  2·49

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·00

  9·70

  8 02

  33·89

  1·03

  4·66

  12·55

  8·67

  0·52

  3·36

  4·53

  6·60

  1·68

  4·01

  0·00

  0·78

  Wolverhampton North

  Budgeting Loans

  0·12

  0·47

  0·39

  2·87

  0·27

  2·37

  1·98

  44·41

  0·78

  3·07

  22·59

  18·01

  0·50

  2·17

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  0·00

  4·78

  3·19

  15·47

  0·64

  2·55

  11·16

  25·84

  0·32

  1·28

  5·58

  21·05

  2·23

  5·74

  0·00

  0·16

  Wolverhampton South

  Budgeting Loans

  0·11

  0·63

  0·63

  5·43

  0·11

  1·95

  1·95

  38·83

  0·84

  3·90

  18·81

  22·76

  0·79

  3·27

  0·00

  n/a

  Community Care Grants

  1·13

  2·48

  2·26

  12·42

  0·23

  3·84

  8·13

  29·57

  0·45

  1·58

  7·90

  16·93

  4·74

  8·35

  0·00

  0·00

  1 Key to client groups

  Code

  Meaning

  00

  unallocated or unidentified

  01

  over 80—with income support higher pensioner premium

  02

  aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium

  03

  aged 60–79—with ordinary pensioner premium, or over 60 without pensioner premium

  04

  lone parent with income support disability premium

  05

  family with disability premium

  06

  other with disability premium

  07

  lone parent without disability premium

  08

  signs at UBO quarterly with income support family premium

  09

  signs at UBO quarterly without family premium

  10

  signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  11

  signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  204 205

  12

  others with family premium

  13

  others without family premium

  14

  involved in trade dispute

  15

  applicant not in receipt of income support—not applicable for budgeting loans

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions (Housing Benefit)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will review his policy in relation to war pensions and housing benefit so that local authorities which disregard war pensions when making their assessment would be recompensed from central funds;

  (2) what is his estimate of the savings to public funds which he makes by not disregarding war pensions when housing benefit is assessed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: When assessing housing benefit local authorities must statutorily disregard £5 of a war widow's pension or a war disablement pension. They receive direct subsidy for the housing benefit arising from this normal calculation.

  Where local authorities operate local schemes by which they disregard further amounts of war pensions, the resulting extra housing benefit does not qualify for housing benefit subsidy. The balance is a charge on local rate or community charge payers.

  It is estimated that the cost of disregarding war pensions in full would increase public expenditure on housing benefit and community charge benefit by some £40 million. However, support is reflected in the rate support grant for the discretionary schemes operated by local authorities. The resulting net cost of about £30 million would be of very little benefit to the poorest war pensioners, but give considerable extra sums to some who are relatively well off.

  Ms. N. Hinchcliffe
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the appeal (CSB1605188) to the Social Security Commissioner on a point of law over the refusal of a single payment for bedding lodged on 21 May 1987 in respect of Ms. N. Hinchcliffe will be heard.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  A Commissioner made a determination in this case on 28 June 1989 and copies of that determination were sent to the parties on 30 June 1989. The Commissioner made his determination on the papers, no oral hearing having been requested.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visits there have been by the Health and Safety Executive to employment training(a) projects and (b) work placements since its inception in September 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Health and Safety Executive records do not separately identify inspection to workplaces where employment training participants are present. For the purposes of health and safety legislation, employment training participants have all the same rights and duties as employees.
  206
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage more private employers to provide employment training work placements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department through its marketing campaigns, and training managers through their local contacts, continue to forge links with employers to make them aware of the advantages of ET and to encourage them to offer training opportunities.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East on 4 April,Official Report, column 38, when he expects the Health and Safety Executive to conclude its investigation into repetitive strain injury.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The main results of the project investigating repetitive strain injury at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh were published by the institute in January 1989. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library. A small follow-up study of keyboard operators is still in progress and it is hoped that the results will be available in September this year. The project at the university of Birmingham is also expected to report this September.

  VDU Operators
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to respond to the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive in respect of the health and safety of visual display unit operators.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has not made any recent recommendations on this subject.

  Employment Rehabilitation Centres
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 14 June,Official Report, column 436, he will list the factors which have caused the proportion of expenditure on employment rehabilitation centres reimbursed by the European social fund to fall from 42 per cent. in 1985 to 13 per cent in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 3 July 1989]: The main factors underlying this reduction have been a growth in the total volume of claims on the fund by all member states, resulting in the progressive scaling down of the proportion of successful United Kingdom claims, and changes in the eligibility rules.

SCOTLAND

  National Health Service Reform
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals which have expressed an interest in opting out.
  207
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have not yet asked hospitals to make any formal expressions of interest in becoming self-governing. I shall be doing so shortly at the same time as I issue more detailed information on what is involved.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received supporting the opting out of hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have received a number of representations on this subject. Many support our aims but have raised questions on points of detail. I shall be issuing further guidance shortly.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals he expects to show interest in opting out.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The White Paper indicates that we expect at least two hospitals to become self-governing by 1992.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the first hospital to opt out of health board control.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The White Paper "Working for Patients" and the Scottish working paper 3 on "Self-Governing Hospitals" made it clear that we hope to establish at least two self-governing hospitals by 1992.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to health boards concerning opt-out hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No instructions have been given to health boards. Scottish working paper 3 "Self-Governing Hospitals" gave information on self-governing status. I shall issue more detailed guidance shortly, inviting those who wish to explore this possibility to express their interest to me.

  COSLA
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement with regard to the issues which he expects to raise at the next meeting between himself and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on Monday 3 July, when they let us have their views on the revenue support grant settlement for 1990–91 and other related matters.

  I hope to meet the convention again in the autumn to discuss grant distribution, and such other matters as may by then be appropriate.

  CBI
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I are in frequent touch with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on matters affecting the Scottish economy and industry. We look forward to a continuing exchange of views.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the fall in unemployment in Scotland over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the underlying trend in unemployment in Scotland over the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland, the number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 45,000 over the past 12 months and by almost 90,000 in the last two years. Unemployment has now fallen for 25 months in succession and is now at its lowest level for eight years.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has had from the business community in Scotland following his speech on business rates in Glasgow on 8 May.

  Mr. Lang
  Representatives of 13 business organisations have written to my right hon. and learned Friend. All have welcomed his announcement warmly.

  AIDS
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of prisoners in penal establishments in Scotland who have been diagnosed as suffering from AIDS or are carriers of the disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent survey, conducted on 20 April 1989, showed that six inmates in Scottish penal establishments were suffering from AIDS or AIDS-related complex, and 70 were known to be HIV positive. These figures are comparable with those obtained from surveys conducted during 1988, and are monitored on a regular basis.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the installation of crash barriers on Scottish dual carriageways.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  By the end of this financial year at least 90 km, 39 per cent., of the trunk road motorway network and 143 km, 33 per cent., of trunk road dual carriageways will be equipped with central reserve safety fences or will not require such provision due to the wide separation of the carriageways.

  High-Rise Flats
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to provide extra finance for improving high-rise flats.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For 1989–90 we have made available £474 million for capital investment in local authority houses; this is an increase of £28·8 million or 6·5 per cent. on the resources announced in March last year. It is for individual authorities as landlords to determine their own policies and priorities for their housing stock and to draw up capital programmes for investment, including any plans for work on high-rise flats.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special resources he plans to make available to the police and appropriate agencies in order to alleviate the social problems which emanate from drug abuse in the city of Glasgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's strategy to combat drug misuse and the specific measures that are being taken are described in the publication "Tackling Drug Misuse—A Summary of the Government's Strategy" (Third Edition, 1988), copies of which are in the Library.

  The deployment of police resources is a matter for chief constables. Strathclyde police attaches a very high priority to tackling drug misuse. Since 1979 the force's drug squad, which is based at Glasgow, has been increased from 18 to 34 officers. In addition, since 1986 we have authorised increases totalling 31 officers in the strength of the Scottish crime squad to allow the formation of drugs wings, one of which is based at Glasgow.

  As for other agencies, the sum allocated to Greater Glasgow health hoard for the support of drug misuse services in 1989–90 is £466,861. In addition, from 1989–90 we are making available to health boards generally a further £1 million per annum for the development of these services. The provision of such services is, however, primarily the responsibility of health boards and local authorities.

  Electricity Bills
  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what authority the South of Scotland electricity board demands repayment of electricity bills which have been estimated due to faulty meters.

  Mr. Lang
  The South of Scotland electricity board, in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Supply Acts 1882 to 1936 and the schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, or on the basis of contract, is entitled to charge for electricity which it supplies. In addition, the board relies in appropriate circumstances on section 51 of the South of Scotland Electricity Order Confirmation Act 1956, as amended, for recovery of damage caused to meters. Assessed accounts are issued to seek payment for a supply of electricity which is unrecorded because of a faulty or damaged meter, in accordance with the board's conditions for supply of electricity, and the board has confirmed that this approach has found acceptance in the courts. Moreover, the board has a clear responsibility to seek payment in this way since otherwise the cost would be borne by the general body of its consumers.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has recently received regarding the impact of the standard community charge in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the standard community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of such representations.
  210
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many changes have been made to the poll tax register in the Strathclyde region since the beginning of 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  It is the responsibility of community charge registration officers to maintain the community charge registers and the information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of those required to register for the community charge in Scotland have done so; and what percentage of those liable to pay the charge have begun to make payments.

  Mr. Lang
  It is estimated that almost 99 per cent. of the adult population has been registered. It will be some while before reliable information becomes available from local authorities on payment levels.

  Tourism
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of tourists from England who visit Scotland; what percentage this is of the total number of visitors to Scotland; and how much they contribute to Scotland's economy.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tourists visited Scotland over the last 10 years; and what percentage of the total number originated from England.

  Mr. Lang
  Information for the most recent years for which final figures are available is set out in the following table.

  Year

  Domestic and Overseas Visitors to Scotland (millions)

  Visitors to Scotland from England (millions)

  Visitors from England as percentage of total

  £ million expenditure by Visitors from England

  1978

  13·2

  4·76

  36

  n/a

  1979

  12·5

  4·72

  36

  n/a

  1980

  12·7

  4·19

  33

  n/a

  1981

  13·0

  4·60

  35

  n/a

  1982

  13·4

  4·20

  31

  n/a

  1983

  14·1

  5·90

  47

  n/a

  1984

  14·2

  5·90

  42

  756

  1985

  13·7

  5·80

  42

  709

  1986

  13·2

  5·94

  45

  775

  1987

  14·8

  6·71

  45

  1,000

  Source:

  For domestic visitors, 'British Home Tourism Survey' for period 1978–1983 and 'National Survey of Tourism in Scotland' for the period 1984–1987.

  For overseas visitors, 'International Passenger Survey' 1978–1987.

  Gaelic Television
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met with Comunn na Gaidhlig to discuss Gaelic television.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I met representatives of Comunn na Gaidhlig on 17 April to discuss their views on the future of Gaelic broadcasting. My officials have had a further meeting with the council since then.

  Development Agency
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency since its inception.

  Mr. Lang
  Taking account of provisional expenditure for 1988–89, the Scottish Development Agency had spent at the end of March a total of £1,304 million in the period since it was formed.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply by my right hon. and learned Friend to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) earlier today.

  Local Councillors
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received concerning the practice of local councillors holding local authority employment in local authorities in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Thirty-four of those who responded to consultation about the Widdicombe report expressed views on this subject, as did seven of those who commented on the Government's response to that report or on the relevant provisions in the Local Government and Housing Bill. In addition, two individuals have made representations about the way in which they would be affected by those provisions.

  Deep Coal Mining
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on the Scottish economy of the run down in the deep coal mining industry.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are continuing to keep the situation in the deep coal mining industry, including the impact of the rundown on the Scottish economy, under close review.

  Forestry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what impact the recent tax changes relating to the forestry industry have had upon the levels of tree planting.
  212
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to him on 9 May 1989,Official Report, column 332.

  Local Government Services
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further progress local authorities in Scotland are making with regard to contracting out of local government services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities remain fully engaged in implementing the competition provisions of the Local Government Act 1988. The first round of work won in competition has to be under way by 1 August this year with further rounds by 1 January and 1 August in subsequent years.

  From the information available it would appear that so far local authorities have themselves been winning contracts in most cases. Where any anti-competitive practice has been alleged my officials are following up the cases with the local authorities concerned.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the Scottish new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have now completed their consideration of the issues affecting the future of the Scottish new towns, and our conclusions and proposals will be set out in a White Paper within the next few weeks.

  General Practitioner
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the increase in the number of general practitioners since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of general medical practitioners in Scotland has risen from 2,921 in 1979 to 3,353 (provisional) in 1988. The corresponding figures for general dental practitioners are 1,204 and 1,523 (provisional).

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the waiting lists for(a) hip, (b) ear, nose and throat, and (c) varicose vein operations in Scottish hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Waiting list figures are not collected centrally for individual types of operation, but the all-Scotland waiting lists in the relevant specialties of orthopaedic, ENT and general surgery fell by 6 per cent., 15 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively between March and September 1988. In Lanarkshire the reductions were 13 per cent., 27 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively. Our wide-ranging waiting list initiatives in 1988–89 have made a substantial contribution to these reductions and the allocation of £3 million helped health boards to treat an extra 8,800 inpatients in the year to March 1989. For 1989–90 I have already allocated £6·5 million of the £7 million which I made available and health boards have set themselves a target to see or treat an extra 26,000 outpatients, 17,250 inpatients and 1,800 day cases. This is in addition to the action which boards themselves are continuing to take to increase the number of patients treated. The biggest allocations have been for orthopaedic and general surgery.

  Employment Prospects
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Glasgow, Rutherglen constituency to discuss employment prospects.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit the Glasgow, Rutherglen constituency.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's performance regarding the attraction of inward investment to Scotland since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  Since 1979 Scotland has enjoyed very significant success as a location for inward investment thanks to Government policies which have re-established the United Kingdom as a place in which enterprise is welcome and can flourish, and to the effectiveness of the one-door approach to inward investment operated by Locate in Scotland since it was set up in 1981.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to give immediate aid to the Scottish fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Current difficulties in the fishing industry reflect the inevitable consequences of having to cut quotas to secure future stocks and prosperity. It would not be appropriate to provide any immediate financial aid to the industry which has had several successful years under the common fisheries policy.

  Nirex
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met senior officials from Nirex; and what was discussed.
  214
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and the Secretary of State for the Environment met officials of the executive on 15 March 1989 to discuss their report to the Government on sites for investigation for the deep disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes.

  Business Grants
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies in receipt of a cash grant from his Department to establish a business in Scotland have discontinued such business within five years of establishment.

  Mr. Lang
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, it is possible to provide some figures for companies which have received regional selective assistance. Since the introduction of the current guidelines for RSA in November 1984, eight companies which received RSA towards establishing new businesses in Scotland are known to have discontinued such business. These companies receive some £346,000. Recovery of grant is pursued in appropriate cases. By comparison, there have been 91 projects in total which have received RSA to establish new businesses in Scotland over the same period, with associated grant payments to date of £19·2 million.

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the figures of football-related arrests for all Scottish clubs(a) for the seasons 1987–88 and 1988–89 and (b) as a percentage of total attendances at football matches during those seasons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information set out in the table relates to arrests within Scottish league grounds at league and cup matches.

  Season

  Number of arrests

  Percentage of attendance

  1987–88

  845

  0·0163

  1988–89

  806

  0·0169

  Central Legal Office
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he or any of his health board general managers has made any proposals for the services provided by the central legal office to be put out to competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At the request of the Scottish Home and Health Department, the Common Services Agency, of which the central legal office is part, will shortly put out to tender certain conveyancing and related work.

  Consultancy Fees
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each financial year since 1983–84 the amount spent by each health board on consultancy fees at 1983–84 constant prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available from the annual accounts of health boards relates to the total of
  215
  fees paid by health boards to management consultants, legal firms, other than for legal expenses connected with compensation claims, and to work study consultants. The

  £ at 1983–84 prices

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1 1988–89

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,839

  861

  19,255

  48,086

  16,300

  53,100

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  8,159

  30,329

  6,161

  7,475

  24,897

  Borders

  1,537

  748

  12,585

  1,763

  4,546

  12,076

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  4,395

  2,447

  31,567

  47,536

  Fife

  16,464

  20,503

  11,195

  22,142

  28,814

  47,964

  Forth Valley

  755

  3,026

  20,690

  22,976

  36,805

  52,487

  Grampian

  6,490

  1,553

  13,880

  81,716

  138,589

  33,039

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  6,293

  3,462

  2 —1,081

  40,725

  199,630

  Highland

  —

  424

  2,626

  16,754

  10,789

  82,311

  Lanarkshire

  —

  3,835

  113

  —

  2,495

  20,618

  Lothian

  2,912

  1,575

  12,573

  72,994

  71,566

  134,089

  Orkney

  460

  —

  1,479

  564

  1,499

  13,579

  Shetland

  72

  1,164

  1,196

  1,260

  1,499

  4,194

  Tayside

  —

  —

  55

  223

  50,293

  11,436

  Western Isles

  2,000

  —

  13

  1,939

  9,238

  22,142

  Totals

  33,529

  48,141

  133,846

  277,944

  452,200

  759,098

  1 Provisional.

  2 Net of credits.

  Elderly People (Long-term Care)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the proposed provision of long-term care for the elderly at Rutherglen hospital by Takare plc was put out to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board has not made any final decision on the provision of long-term care for the elderly in the south-east of Glasgow.

  Additionality
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 163, what were the rules on additionality under (a) regulation No. 724/75, (b) regulation No. 1787/84 and (c) regulation No. 4253/88; and what steps he is taking to ensure genuine additionality at the regional level, in accordance with article 9 of regulation 4253/88.

  Mr. Lang
  Article 9 of regulation 4253/88 calls for the increase in the size of the European Community structural funds to have a genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned and to result in at least an equivalent increase in the total of public structural aid in the member state concerned. There were no analagous articles in the previous regulations, but they contained provisions about grants supplementing or partially reimbursing national aids.

  The impact of the funds in Scotland is clear. Grants are paid to a wide range of local authorities and other bodies, saving them up to 50 per cent. of the cost of qualifying projects. This will continue to be the case, as it has been in the past.

  Glenochil Prison (Security Equipment)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the value of security and surveillance equipment supplied to Her Majesty's prison Glenochil and attached establishments in the years 1986 to 1989 to the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  From 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1989 the sum spent on security and surveillance
  216
  amounts for each health board are shown in the table. Expenditure for 1984–85 onwards has been converted to 1983–84 prices using the gross domestic product deflator.

  equipment in Her Majesty's prison Glenochil was £59,416·14. Over the same period the sum of £650,181·20 was spent on such equipment specifically for other establishments run by the Scottish prison service.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the procedures for ordering security and surveillance equipment at Her Majesty's prison Glenochil and attached establishments; what were these procedures in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Home and Health Department has a central purchasing policy for security and surveillance equipment to be acquired through its prison building division. The procedures involve multiple tendering. These procedures apply to all establishments and were in force in 1986. In exceptional circumstances, single tender action can be implemented provided that it complies with the rules of public accounting.

  Princes Street (Traffic Regulations)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the proposal of Lothian regional council to amend traffic regulations on Princes street, Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under schedule 9, part II of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, my right hon. and learned Friend is considering Lothian regional council's proposals to facilitate the flow of vehicular traffic on Princes street, Edinburgh, by increasing the restricted hours for waiting, loading and unloading to 24 hours of every day and the prohibited hours to 8 am to 6 pm of every day subsequent to the widening of the north footway. The order includes provisions to facilitate orange badge holders' parking in streets adjacent to Princes street following the removal of the present facility to park on Princes street as a result of footway widening and additional waiting restrictions.

  Thirteen representations have been received on this subject. These fall broadly into three categories: (a) objections from disabled people about the exclusion of

  217
  orange badge holders from Princes street; (b) objections from traders in Princes street about loading/unloading difficulties; (c) objections from people anticipating the possible future complete pedestrianisation of Princes street.

  Full consideration is being given to all the representations I have received. I hope to give my decision soon.

  Red List Substances (Salmon Farming)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources are being made available to the river purification boards to enable them to fulfil their duty to monitor red list substances including dichlorous in the light of the growth rate of the salmon farming industry.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for each river purification board to set annual expenditure in line with its duties, including those relating to the proposed red list, and the necessary resources are obtained by requisition on the regional councils whose areas lie wholly or partly in the area of the board.

  British Steel
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of British Steel; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of British Steel on 26 October 1988. A number of matters of current interest were discussed.

  Community Charge
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the operation of the standard community charge.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Prisons (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland into conditions and arrangements for accommodating persons detained in Scottish prisons under the Immigration Act 1971 and members of ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am today publishing my statement in response to this report. Copies of both are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Torness
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the estimated annual marginal costs to the Scottish electricity boards in 1989–90 of generating the equivalent output of Torness by burning Scottish coal in existing Scottish power stations.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: Information on the Scottish electricity boards' estimated generation costs for the current financial year is commercially sensitive and confidential to the boards.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the estimated annual interest charges to the Scottish electricity boards from the construction of Torness nuclear power station.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: The Scottish electricity boards' total assets are financed by a combination of internally generated funds, borrowings and current liabilities, none of which attaches to individual assets. It is therefore not possible to attribute specific loans or interest charges to Torness nuclear power station.

  Shipbuilding (Redundancies)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of redundancies in the shipbuilding and shiprepair industries in Strathclyde during the period 1 January 1979 to 31 December 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: Information is not available in the precise form requested. There are no comprehensive statistics on redundancies. The number of redundancies involving 10 or more workers confirmed to the Department of Employment—the Training Agency—as having occurred in Strathclyde region in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry between 1 January 1979 and 31 December 1988 was 11,303.

  Central Excavations Unit
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been employed by the Scottish Development Department's central excavations unit and its successor body on short-term contracts for periods of more than two years; and why such people have not been offered full-time employment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: In the four years 1985–86 to 1988–89 there have been no contracts of more than two years. No individual contract has been for more than 156 working days, and only five contracts have been for more than 100 working days.

  Information on contracts before 1985 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation from the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Service to attend on Thursday 13th July a service of commemoration in Westminster Abbey in the gracious presence of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, to celebrate 100 years of the work of the Inner London Magistrates' Courts, and that I am to visit Humberside magistrates on Friday 14th July. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday 13th and Friday 14th July.

Forestry Tax and Grant Regime
2.37 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have assessed the impact on forestry planting of the new forestry tax and grant regime introduced in the 1988 Budget.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, as the private planting grant-aided in the year to 31st March 1989 included a substantial amount undertaken before the 1988 Budget—or subsequently with the benefit of transitional tax reliefs—it is too early to say what impact the new forestry tax and grant regime will have on planting levels.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, in view of the reported burning of many millions of small nursery saplings and of the widespread expectation that forestry planting this year may be no more than a third of the level that it reached last year, is there not a case for a much greater publicity drive to alert companies—perhaps foreign companies—which might be prepared to invest in forestry in this country? They were not able to take advantage of the previous tax regime, whereas they can take advantage of the new grant regime. If this is not done we shall face a shortage of timber in the years to come.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point on this matter. The secretary of the Royal Forestry Society has said that prospects for forestry seem to be better. It is a question of attracting different types of investor. With the
1160
information coming from the Forestry Commission and the dedicated work of the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain, I am absolutely certain that we shall achieve over time what my noble friend requires.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his noble friend's Question would have been much better asked before the Budget? If some assessment of what might happen had been made then, we would not have had this cock-up, which, as the noble Lord said, is messing up 40 million young trees.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I recall that it was not only on these Benches that the changes in the Budget last year were welcomed. One of the experts who has nursery trees in his business, Mr. Christie of Fochabers, has said:
"The Government's long-term policy is not far wrong. We think it will come right. Demand for timber is there".
It is not just one-sided in this matter.
Lord Rees: My Lords, if, as seems likely, actual planting, as opposed to grant applications, which are always notoriously an unreliable guide to such matters, falls short—it seems likely to fall far short of the Government's figures—what measures will they propose to restore confidence in this much battered area of economic activity?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, my noble friend is an expert on these matters. He will recall that I said that with such a big change we expected that there would be a dip in planting in the year ahead and perhaps in the years ahead. However, we feel that it was in the long-term interests of the industry to move to the new position. These matters are kept under review by myself and my colleagues.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the Minister was enthusiastic about the potential prosperity of forestry in the United Kingdom. Does he have the same enthusiasm for the future of forestry in Wales? In this connection I must declare an interest as the owner of a few hundred acres of forestry planted 1,000 feet above the little town of Tregaron.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is an expert on matters concerning Wales. I undertand his point, but I should make it clear that the long-term future of the timber industry in this country is assured. At the turn of the century the Forestry Commission, which is a major part of the forestry industry, though somewhat reduced in size, will be supplying substantially more timber to the industry than it does at present.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the noble Lord has set out the position for the whole country. I asked about the position in Wales. As far as I have understood him this afternoon he made no mention of Wales.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to have details of the position in Wales I shall be perfectly happy to write to him. But, overall, the industry is in good heart.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, in keeping the matter under review, will my noble friend bear in mind that there is a strong case for making a distinction between the planting of broad-leaved hardwood timber and the planting of coniferous timber? Is he not aware that the planting of broad-leaved trees may well suffer as a result of the tax proposals? Is it not therefore most urgent that this matter is reviewed?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, my noble friend may be aware that the broadleaf policy is being reviewed at present. The Government will come forward with their acknowledgment of the consultation which has recently taken place. As regards the question of broadleaves as such, I must say that I do not share my noble friend's pessimism; in fact, only last month I attended the opening of a new nursery in Scotland where 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the good business being carried on was in broadleaves.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to a long-term policy for forestry on the part of the Government. Can he tell me where I may discover what that policy is?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows, we have targets for forestry planting in this country which he will be aware cover both the woodland grant scheme and the forestry grant scheme. In both cases those targets are constantly watched. In addition, I do not think that it is insignificant that investors in the industry—to quote, Caledonian Paper, which has a factory in Irvine that will be opened tomorrow—do not believe that the future of forestry in this country is under threat.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, does my noble friend realise the significance of, and does he not also draw great encouragement from, the fact that a former distinguished member of the Treasury—namely, my noble friend Lord Jenkin—has made encouraging remarks about forestry?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords. I believe that there is a sound future for forestry. Of course, when a major change in budgetary arrangements takes place there must be concern as to whether the whole situation will improve. But my noble friend is quite right, I have no doubt that there is a very good long-term future for the prosperity of this industry. Indeed, I take note of what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said as regards publicity.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may say in response to my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the question I wish to ask is whether my noble friend recollects that, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I actually published in 1970 a very encouraging White Paper
1162
on forestry? I must say that I hope my noble friend will follow up his last remarks about publicity with some urgency. I believe that without such action we shall be in danger of having a considerable gap in planting which we shall regret in the years ahead.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I acknowledge that a good deal is going on in this respect; however, there is always room for more.

Occupied Territories: Closure of Schools
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Israeli Government concerning the indefinite closure of all educational establishments in the occupied territories of Palestine.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have repeatedly made clear our view that Israel's security concerns do not justify the closure of schools. We have called on the Israeli authorities, most recently in the European Council Declaration on the Middle East on 27th June, to allow the schools to reopen.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, is the noble Lord aware that over 300,000 children and students are affected by the closures? Is he further aware that it is even illegal to teach in private houses? Does the noble Lord also accept the wish of Members from all sides of the House to uphold the educational rights of both the Palestinians and the Israelis? Will Her Majesty's Government continue to press for the reopening of such schools and universities as an essential confidence-building measure pending a negotiated political settlement?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I must say that the figures quoted by the noble Lord are indeed disturbing; but there is more than one source for the kind of figures he used. It is difficult to get the true picture. However, I certainly agree that what he has described is a deplorable state of affairs. I can assure him that we shall continue to press the matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say which other countries are supporting the British Government in their endeavours to bring peace to the Middle East and to see an end to the appalling situation which exists in the occupied territories?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will appreciate that many countries are keen to see a resolution of this tragic state of affairs. We have been closely engaged in the matter as have the Americans, which is extremely important. Many countries in the Arab world are also involved.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why it is that the Israeli Government are doing what they are doing? After all, if we are to have a balance sheet we ought to have all the figures.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is a danger on this sort of Question that we become involved in a major debate on the whole Arab-Israeli conflict. It has happened fairly regularly recently. The Question relates strictly to the matter of schools.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what is the justification put forward by the Israeli Government for the closure of all the schools in this part of the world?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the excuse put forward by the Israeli Government is that it is a matter of security for them. We understand that they have security concerns. However, I do not believe that what they have done with their schools can in any sense be considered as some sort of security risk.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, apart from the denial of education, which I believe has lasted now for 18 months, does the Minister recall stating recently that the Israeli army has killed 90 children and wounded 20,000 others by beating and shooting? Will he give the assurance that, while that treatment of children continues, there will be no official educational or cultural links with Israel?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, those figures are broadly correct, as I said the other day. On cultural and educational links between Israel and this country, the British Council is active in Israel and there is a budget of £1.7 million for 1989–90. It is important to bear in mind, however, that withdrawal of that type of aid would not help to solve the problems of the occupied territories. That type of aid is more a force for good and understanding than anything else.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware than some of us sympathise with the Israeli Government—the only democratic government in the whole of the Middle East—in their fight against the PLO and its various arms? Surely they closed the schools merely as a matter of security.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, but I cannot accept, and nor can the Government, that the closure of the schools was necessary from a security point of view.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, knowing as he does our concern and long-standing friendship with the state of Israel, will the Minister say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking? In view of the close relationship which has existed over the years between the British Government and the Government of Israel, would it not be appropriate for his right honourable and learned friend to make direct approaches to Mr. Shamir and the Foreign Secretary?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that Mr. Shamir's visit confirmed our good relations with Israel. We had thorough talks covering the Arab-Israel situation and other regional issues and bilateral questions. I can assure him that we shall of course continue to remain in close touch.

Crime in Rural Areas
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilion Baroness Masham of Ilion asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to arrest the escalation of crime in rural areas.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, crime levels are falling in non-Metropolitan Police force areas, but outbreaks of particular types of crime occur in various places from time to time. To counter this we have increased police manpower for non-metropolitan forces. We are introducing a new training programme for their officers and we are encouraging the development of Farm Watch and other crime prevention schemes.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that courteous and helpful Answer. Is he aware that the depressing aspect of the matter is that the stolen goods are hardly ever recovered and that the criminals come out from the towns and target the rural areas? They are mobile and motivated and get away with their crimes.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, unfortunately and sadly that is the case in some circumstances. The police are obviously aware of the position and do everything in their power to see that the goods are returned to their rightful owners.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that insurance companies can be extremely helpful by advising owners of property which is at risk from vandals and so forth as to what type of equipment they should put on their doors, because we are all losing swords and so on?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Insurance companies reflect their clients' awareness in their premiums. It is the job and responsibility of good, sensible insurance companies to ensure that clients are always advised how best to protect their property.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the fact that some of the crime is committed by young people under the influence of drink, will the Minister say whether there has been any success as a result of the recent Licensing Act which strengthened the law governing the sale of alcohol to under-age drinkers, and whether there have been any prosecutions of licensees and publicans? What training is given to teachers and social workers to help prevent young people falling into the habit of drinking or to help them out of it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with regard to the recent report on rural violence, we have strengthened the law relating to the sales of alcohol to under-age drinkers and have increased the penalties available to the courts. Advice has been issued to the police and courts about the powers available to deal with outbreaks of disorder. We have encouraged the drinks industry to increase the production and promotion of low and no alcohol drinks.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who live in isolated rural areas are grateful to the police for their support and protection, and that if one is alone in a house, of course with dogs, it is nice to see a police car driving around?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all agree with what my noble friend has said.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, has the Minister noted that many of the supplementary questions addressed to him on this subject have been to do with the theft of property in rural areas? Does he accept that in many cases it is the theft of stock that concerns people? Highly organised gangs steal sheep and other stock from the Fells, butcher them on site and take them away. The Minister has referred to the efforts made to restore property to its rightful owners. One cannot apply that remedy to thefts of the type that I have described.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are aware of the point that the noble Lord makes. With regard to the theft of animals and stock, in their Farm Watch scheme the police encourage people to have markings on their property or animals.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the advice I received from the police after I had a burglary at my farm in Essex was that it was a good idea to have sufficient light, and a good barking dog, on farm buildings and farm houses? Electricity is expensive, and I hope that the Government will take note of that advice when we deal later on with the first amendment to the Electricity Bill.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that the police gave extremely good advice. Farm Watch schemes now operate in 18 counties.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the reasons why it is becoming difficult to recover property is the plethora of car boot sales and other associated events? They are obviously a good way for petty criminals to get rid of goods which are not worth much, and they are difficult to stop. I am not suggesting for a moment that any action should be taken to stop that excellent form of raising money for charity, but can my noble friend give any advice to the people who organise such events to keep a special watch for that type of activity?
The Earl of Arran:My Lords, the sensible advice is to keep a good watch for that type of activity. My noble friend will no doubt be aware from when he visits car boot sales that the items in the backs of cars tend to be of low value.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl's reply about the reduction of crime in rural areas. Will he tell us by how much crimes of actual bodily harm and vandalism have decreased? In my experience as a justice of the peace,
1166
those crimes have increased enormously in rural areas in the past few years.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice. I can tell the noble Baroness about the general decrease in crime during the past 10 months. For example, until the end of April this year, recorded crime fell by nearly 5 per cent. in non-Metropolitan Police rural areas and by 9 per cent. in North Yorkshire.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the roads in the North of England have come to a standstill due to traffic hold-ups, it might be a good idea if police forces had helicopters to help catch criminals?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, such action is at the discretion of and is the responsibility of the chief officer of the county; but helicopters are extremely expensive to run.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister but can he answer the question that I put to him? It was whether there had been any prosecutions of publicans for selling drinks to under-age drinkers following the introduction of the Licensing Act. Also, what training is available to teachers and social workers to help young people avoid becoming involved?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, what teachers can do to help is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I shall send to the noble Baroness the imformation she seeks. As regards the first part of the question, I believe that the sensible course would be to spell out the answer in writing.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the new phenomenon of the lager lout in small country towns and the trouble they cause is not attributable to young people from the towns, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said? The problem is caused by the young people from the rural areas themselves: that is quite new.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, unfortunately that is quite accurate.

Crown Courts: Building Programme
3.1 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their building programme for Crown Courts.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the capital court building programme currently contains nearly 50 schemes for the Crown Court, either in construction or yet to reach that stage, involving both adaptations and new buildings.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. However, does he agree that the Crown Courts are

1167
the last in a noble tradition of public building which should be maintained by employing architects of distinction? Does he agree that there is a tendency, as at Middlesbrough, to use prototypes and to design and use building procedures which result in mediocre buildings? Can he give an assurance that wherever possible old court buildings will be retained and modified for their present legal use and not rendered redundant?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree with the view that Crown Court buildings are extremely important public buildings and that an appropriate standard of design must be attained. That standard must enable the building to blend with its environment, create a civic presence reflecting the dignity of justice, command respect for the legal process and mark the place of the law at the focal point of a community. On the other hand, it is also wise to develop general criteria for the requirements of court buildings.
The building at Bradford has similarities with one other court building in its internal layout. But the external appearance is intended to blend with its environment; for example, through the use of local stone for the facing. As regards adaptation of all buildings, where that is economical it is kept very much in mind. But the noble Lord will be aware that it is sometimes extremely difficult to keep the general appearance of an old building while providing the kinds of facilities now required for witnesses, staff and the other users of the court building.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord prepared to put some designs out to open competition among architects given that these are in many cases such important civic buildings? Is he aware that in Telford, where we asked for a building in keeping with the new modern image of the town, what we got was a purely nostalgic pavilion that people think was built in the 1930s? The design was by an in-house architect; we could not shift his authority from that design.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the arrangements attempt to secure good design consistent with creating buildings within a reasonable economic cost. As concerns Telford, the point which the noble Lord raises is obviously a matter of judgment. A nostalgic building may have great attractions for some of us.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in considering the advice of my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley about retaining existing courts in existing positions, will the noble and learned Lord please balance that advice against the necessary considerations of security and ease of accesss for the prison service and for witnesses, particularly when changing traffic patterns sometimes make existing locations quite untenable?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all these circumstances certainly have to be taken into account. I am sure that my noble friend appreciates that local circumstances sometimes make it impossible to continue with the old building,
1168
however desirable it might be. I assure your Lordships that we consider carefully whether the old building can be maintained as the court building before we decide to go for a completely new one.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords—
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that although it is often desirable to retain the originality of buildings, there are some which were originally bad?
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Lord Elwyn-Jones.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, patience has been rewarded! Is it not the case that the time spent in custody by those awaiting trial in the Crown Courts has become grossly excessive? It is an unjust feature of our arrangements. Is there not therefore urgent need to accelerate the building of Crown Courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, obviously one of the aims of the programme which I described in my original Answer is to attempt to cope with this problem. Over the last five years several major schemes have been completed, providing nearly 60 additional Crown Court rooms, almost half in London and the South East. Despite a huge increase in the workload, this has helped over the period to keep average waiting times more or less as they were. Our aim is to reduce these times because I entirely accept the principle underlying the noble and learned Lord's point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that designing each court building on a one-off basis is a very expensive exercise? At a time when there are severe restrictions on spending on housing, schools and hospitals, is it not nonsense to allow costs to escalate severely in the building of Crown Courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are difficult questions of priorities to be decided in relation to any expense. However, within the limits of trying to be as economical as possible, we attempt to get the best design we can. It is important that the design should take account of the locality. That does not necessarily involve additional expense, but it is an important consideration. It must be taken into account along with all the other considerations that go into the production of a good Crown Court building.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether any consideration is being given to the abolition of that archaic institution, the dock? Is it not high time that accused persons were allowed to sit with their legal advisers, as they do in all other civilised Western nations? The present situation is ridiculous. The defendant is isolated in a dock in the centre of the court. This takes up an enormous amount of space and it is impossible for the defendant to communicate with his legal advisers. Is it not high time that that institution was abolished?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord will be aware that these are not matters on which universal agreement is easily reached. Before any decision is taken to abolish the dock, a number of interests would require to be consulted. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is promoting his point of view actively in those quarters.
Lord Benson: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor help us as regards the number of courts in the new programme which are designed and equipped to deal with the new information technology which is developing very quickly in this country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is an aspect of court design which we are taking into account. The precise requirements are not always easy to estimate, but in the design of the buildings the development of a technological requirement is kept in mind.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I tell the House that after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Hong Kong. It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Report stage of the Electricity Bill will be adjourned at about seven o'clock for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill will be taken.

New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Employment (Age Limits) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Phillips: 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 Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electricity Bill
3.13 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Director General of Electricity Supply]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("in a manner that protects consumers of electricity without discrimination").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 60 and 61, which are consequential on this amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who is supporting these amendments, tenders his apology.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that no one in any particular area is discriminated against as regards charging for electricity. I need hardly add that my particular concern is the rural community. Even though I appreciate that the Government's intention is the same, I suggest to your Lordships that the words used in Clauses 4 and 20 do not make this very clear. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Peston, went so far in Committee as to call the drafting "weasel words". Perhaps I would not go quite as far as that, but I do not understand it. Hence these amendments which I hope clarify the matter.
In Committee, the matter of charging rural users of electricity more than others was discussed under Clause 18, now Clause 20, but since then we have had both Report and Third Reading of the Water Bill, upon which your Lordships put forward the same point. However, my noble friend Lord Caithness persuaded me that the correct way to deal with the problem was by giving the Secretary of State and the director general under Clause 7 of that Bill duties to protect the rural consumer. The Government graciously drafted and accepted such an amendment at Third Reading. It is therefore with some hope that I return to the Electricity Bill with a similar amendment that would make it a specific duty on the Secretary of State and. the director general to ensure that rural users of electricity pay at the same rate as anyone else. In fact that is the position today, and will, I understand, continue for at least five years as promised by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Spicer in another place [Official Report, Commons, 6/4/89; col. 400].
These amendments, therefore, merely put on the face of the Bill the desires and hopes that he had. Having a somewhat suspicious nature, I fear that the new commercially orientated electricity plcs will in future have to answer to their shareholders and profitability will inevitably take precedence over service. So the promise might easily be forgotten and those least able to protect themselves will be charged more, not least those in rural areas because there neither is nor will be any competition from other sources of energy.
Noble Lords who followed a similar amendment in the Water Bill will note that we have included in this set of amendments an additional consequential

1171
amendment to Clause 20. I have to admit that it was in my mind to do so on the Water Bill, but, as I have said before, my noble friend Lord Caithness persuaded me—though not all of your Lordships—that such a course of action was impractical and indeed could have strange results because water charges are related to rates. However, in this Bill such an argument just cannot apply.
I was pleased, and indeed encouraged, to read reports of the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when she attended the Royal Show on Monday. She said that she considered farmers to be the backbone of our society. That backbone, as many noble Lords know, is suffering at the moment from a series of financial slipped discs. So I hope the House will support this series of amendments, which will prevent any further financial burden being put on those who live in the country. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I cannot add a lot to what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has said on these amendments except to say, as I pointed out in my earlier efforts at Question Time today, that we in farming have to provide our own roads and our own street lighting, or at least lighting for buildings and houses outside. That is very expensive, as was pointed out earlier. Any discrimination which would make that more expensive for farmers would be completely unfair. I had experience of the early days in Scotland when the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board came into being. That board was going to charge a lot extra for laying electricity to remote farms. If I remember rightly, it had to change its policy and try to spread the price.
The Minister has told us that somewhere around 80 per cent., if not more, of the cost of electricity lies in the generation of it and that the spreading cannot therefore be all that expensive. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will support these four amendments, which I feel will achieve non-discrimination for rural areas.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I have some anxiety about these amendments on two grounds. First, in a number of different places in the Bill the statement is made that electricity shall be provided without discrimination. Clause 4(2)(a), for example, states that the prices charged to tariff customers shall not:
"distinguish … between different parts of that area".
Elsewhere in the Bill there is reference to the avoidance of discrimination between various groups of people. Yet, in Amendment No. 61, which my noble friend will be moving, he wishes to add the words:
"particularly consumers in rural areas".
It seems to me, therefore, that we are saying that there is one particular group which shall be singled out—apparently for all time, as no time limit is set on this factor—with regard to tying the hands and the pricing mechanisms of electricity suppliers. That seems to me to be an error.
There is a second point which makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to confirm that the
1172
area board chairmen have stated that they expect to maintain the current system of domestic tariffs—which does not discriminate—for at least five years. I should have thought that that represents an acceptable assurance to those who fear that there may be discrimination. In addition, the Bill quite clearly states on page 16, in Clause 20(4), that the,
"public electricity supplier shall not exercise any undue discrimination against any person or class of persons".
Therefore, their concern is in part covered.
We should hesitate to write on to the face of the Bill that a particular group of people should be singled out either for discrimination or for protection from discrimination.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, on this issue, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, has just said. Your Lordships will recall that when we debated the Telecommunications Bill and the Gas Bill we were all concerned about people in rural areas. It is a fact that to supply them with basic services costs more, but under public service arrangements they were not discriminated against. There is concern that under privatised arrangements they could be.
Therefore I believe that it is perfectly proper to instance them for specific consideration. These people have lived in those areas on the assumption that they would continue to be supplied with the basic services which they need to conduct their normal lives, without discrimination compared with those who live elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, pointed out, there will undoubtedly be a temptation for a commercially oriented organisation to have regard to the costs of supplying the services. In rural areas those costs are undoubtedly higher. However, social considerations intervene.
I believe that in this House we should pay regard to those social considerations, which apply particularly to people in this category. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, in this respect. This group of our compatriots is potentially at risk under the legislation and they should be exempted specifically from that risk. Therefore I support the amendments.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. We discussed this matter at an earlier stage and the Minister said that he would reconsider the position. I believe that the proposals that have been put forward today are very much in tune with what he would like, and I very much hope that he will accept them.
Unless one lives, as I do, miles away in the country, it is very difficult to realise what an enormous difference electricity has made to life on farms in isolated areas. We all know about the Highlands: they had electricity before the south of Scotland. Now we all have electricity, and all agricultural work is organised around the use of electricity in every form. It is more economic and saves labour.
I therefore believe that this is a very important matter. I very much hope that the Minister will realise that this is an issue which all of us who live

1173
in rural areas or work in farming and agriculture believe to be extremely important, and that he will accept the amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I had hoped that we should see on the Marshalled List an entry in the name of my noble friend the Minister, at least in an attempt to meet the anxieties which were expressed very clearly during the Committee stage. It is not my intention to repeat at length the arguments in favour of giving special attention to the concerns and needs of those who live in rural areas; that has already been done by others. However, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the alternatives offered by my noble friend's amendments.
The first amendment requires the Secretary of State or director to take into account the needs of those living in rural areas. I can see the possibility that, in order to blunt the concerns which have been expressed, the Government might yield to the temptation to insert those words into the Bill. However, I have very grave doubts as to whether they would be adequate. I fear that they would be merely cosmetic and might have little or no effect.
I greatly prefer Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 in the name of my noble friend which specifically require that there should be no undue discrimination against any person or class of persons, particularly in rural areas. Noble Lords may think that that says much the same as the earlier amendment, but in my view it is much clearer. I hope therefore that the Government will be moved to accept those amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on the Water Bill I was glad to support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, and was very glad of the outcome of the persuasion which he and others exercised on that Bill. But if I remember rightly, it was not just a measure advanced to protect those in rural areas, taking the country as a whole. The purpose and the result of the amendments which he moved—and the Government accepted the last of them at Third Reading—was to ensure that there should be no discrimination within each area.
We have a slightly different situation this afternoon. I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Peyton in the detailed points that he made about the amendments. I find that the first amendment—which is the one we are discussing—is inconsistent with Amendment No. 32 and with Amendments Nos. 60 and 61. I say that for this reason: Amendment No. 1 says that the duties to be performed by the Secretary of State shall be performed:
"in a manner that protects consumers of electricity without discrimination".
That could mean that people in urban and rural areas are all to be treated the same. But that is not what my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and others are seeking in this amendment. Therefore, it seems to me that Amendment No. 1 is contrary to the argument which they are putting forward. My noble friend shakes his head, but if he can persuade
1174
the Government, and me and others, that that is not so, I shall be very interested to know what the argument is.
We know—I speak as one who is bath a consumer in an urban area, namely London and a consumer in a rural area—that the cost of electricity in London tends to be rather expensive compared with some other parts of the country. The great thing is that within each area, whether it be an urban area or a rural area, there should be no discrimination between consumers.
The difficulty that I find is that Amendment No. 1 militates against that aim because it seems to indicate that those consumers in urban and rural areas must be treated in the same way. But, by referring to rural areas collectively in Amendment No. 32 and again in Amendment No. 61, we are avoiding the situation that we happily reached on the Water Bill that there should be no discrimination between the consumers in any particular area. That is why I find some difficulty with the amendments. But, having said that, I hope that on this Bill the Government will find a way of reaching the admirable conclusion that was reached on the Water Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, while I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says, I nevertheless think that Amendment No. 1 is correct and the right road to pursue in order to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I hope many other people wish.
The amendment must also be praised given the historic discrimination against rural areas not only in the electricity industry but in other industries too. I remind noble Lords that it was not until the industry was brought under public ownership in 1949 that rural areas were given much better consideration than before. As a result, 99 to 100 per cent. of all rural areas in this country now have access to an electricity supply, which was certainly not the case before 1949. Many of us are concerned that we may not return to that position. For example, when matters of capital expenditure are considered by a board, it may well take the view that, because the return from a strengthening of the electricity supply in a rural area will be much lower than extending the network in an urban area, the capital expenditure should be in the urban area where the flow of money will be better, rather than in the rural areas where the system needs strengthening, perhaps because bad weather conditions have weakened it generally. I think that that is what the noble Lord is getting at. That is the sort of thing about which many of us will be concerned when the electricity industry is privatised and split up into 12 area boards.
At the present time, while it is true that there are 12 separate area boards, the ethos of the industry is service rather than profit. There is a co-ordination of the operations of the electricity supply industry through the Electricity Council. That will not apply when the industry is privatised. That is why I think the noble Lord is perfectly right in bringing forward the amendment, which I believe deserves support.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend will say in reply to the amendment. I see the difficulties about the wording of Amendment No. 1, but the important thing that we need to hear from the Government is that something will be done about that before the Bill leaves the House.
I say that as someone who now lives further north than many noble Lords. The further north one goes, the more electricity matters. If one is a farmer, the drying costs of electricity are quite enormous nowadays. If one happens to be a long way from the site of electricity generation and the price of electricity goes up as a result, there will be great confusion in Scottish agriculture. That applies not only to agriculture; simply living further north affects you very much because you must keep your house warm and you therefore use more electricity. All those things matter very much.
"Rural" is not necessarily the word that I want to use, because there are towns in Scotland which are a long way from a site of electricity generation and may well be discriminated against. The Government must confront that matter, give a satisfactory reply today and, if possible, bring forward their own amendment at the next stage because it is a serious matter.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is an important amendment and I am glad that it has support from all sides of the House. Ever since nationalisation of the electricity industry—and perhaps even before—there has been a convention in practice that a public service principle would be applied to the price of electricity. Thus, although there are small differences between the price applied in one board area and another, by and large rural consumers are not discriminated against in favour of urban consumers. That is the principle which we all wish to see maintained and which the Government have no possible mandate for overthrowing.
I also see that, in the nature of things, distribution costs in rural areas are bound to be higher because of the length of transmission lines as compared with those in towns and for many other reasons. It is that kind of hurdle that we are trying to overcome.
We should perhaps also note in connection with the five-year moratorium that, by the time of privatisation, the price of electricity will already have increased very much above the going rate of inflation. I support the amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we also support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the consequential amendments to which he spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked what the argument is. Perhaps I may refer to the individual amendments as we go through to explain to him exactly what the arguments are.
Amendment No. 1 introduces a general precept that the director should exercise his duties,
"in a manner that protects consumers of electricity without discrimination".
The director has many areas in which he must protect the consumer, not simply on tariffs or prices.
1176
Generally, he is required under the amendment—which, by itself, has nothing to do with prices—to protect the consumer without discrimination.
Amendment No. 32 goes a little further and lays a general duty under Clause 4 on the Secretary of State or the director to,
"take into account in particular the protection of the interests of consumers of electricity in rural areas".
That amendment therefore moves a little further than the general paving amendment in Clause 1.
The guts—if I may put it like that—of the thesis of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, lie in the amendments to Clause 20, because it is in that clause that we come to the power to recover charges. The two amendments to Clause 20—Amendments Nos. 60 and 61—not only directly address a general theme that the Secretary of State and the director should protect consumers without discrimination but specifically home in on the problem of prices. That is the logical sequence of these amendments, and that is why I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has the sequence right. I hope that those remarks will help the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his reading of the amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made an eloquent plea for Scotland but, as we know, in Clause 4(2) Scotland is covered by the common tariff. She is quite right. But, so far as the north of Scotland is concerned, all her arguments have been met by the Government in Clause 4(2). The point that I wish to make, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would also make, is that what is good for the Scots should also be good for the English and for the Welsh. We cannot understand why Scotland has this particular privilege under the Bill. We should like to see the matter regularised for those of us who have the fortune or misfortune to live south of the Border.
With great respect to my noble friend Lord John-Mackie and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, so far as we are concerned the point of the amendments is not to encourage the farmer. We are not necessarily supporters of the National Farmers' Union. On some occasions we may support the farmers; on others we do not. We feel that there are areas of rural poverty that need to be catered for especially. It is not necessarily the farmer who will be at risk if charges increase to a great extent to account for the capital equipment and other costs which go into transmitting electricity to the rural areas. It is the rural poor who will suffer; those are the people we have very much in mind.
A number of noble Lords have spoken. I believe that there is general support in the House for this amendment. I hope that the Government reply favourably to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. However, time is running short and we have to come to some conclusion. In the light of all the arguments we shall be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, should he decide to take the opinion of the House.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sure that no one will be surprised to hear that I am opposed to the amendment. Although those who have put the case for the amendment have done so

1177
very clearly I feel that they have not really understood the problem. The amendment, instead of helping, may be harming the case.
As I understand it, the element of competition is the whole purpose of privatising electricity. It is the element of competition that distorts the issue and makes the situation totally different from that in the Water Bill. It is not a parallel. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there will be price differences in different areas. At present each domestic consumer—no one has referred to the difference between commercial and domestic consumers—in a certain area is getting electricity at a particular cost.
With the element of competition, instead of there being a monopoly right to supply all those people, anyone will be entitled to come into the area and supply electricity. That is true. The whole purpose of the Bill is to produce an element of competition.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness has been present at all our discussions in Committee. However, on all sides of the House it is understood that public electricity suppliers who supply to the consumer, domestic or otherwise, will have a monopoly in their area. I thought that that was an established fact.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: No, my Lords, I am sorry; I think that that is quite wrong. I think that there will be secondary and tertiary generators who will be able to supply and that anyone will be able to offer a supply. That is what will happen and that is why the five-year protection may be relevant now. Following that period there will be nothing at all to stop the entry into this field of other people.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made the very good point that it is more expensive to maintain lines of supply to remote places. That is true. But the present area boards are quite happy to maintain a fixed price at the same tariff, whatever price has been agreed, for the person in the remote area as for the person in the town. The boards appreciate that there will be additional costs associated with a rural supply but accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there are areas of rural poverty. All sorts of social reasons have been mentioned in this debate as to why the supply needs to be continued. The boards are prepared to bear the extra cost involved.
What the boards are not prepared to do is to put themselves in a position where they find that someone comes forward—I think the phrase is "cherry-picking"—and says, "I will supply electricity to, say, the City of Oxford and supply it more cheaply than you do. It is a nice little area which is easy to supply. I will supply that area and undercut the price of the local supply company". All the customers in that area, which has a high density of population and offers a high profit margin in comparison with a rural area, will say, "Yes, we should like our electricity to be cheaper", and so they get it more cheaply.
However, I do not at all suggest what I think has been put forward in this debate; namely, that rural
1178
customers should have their price put up. I argue that the amendment would prevent an area board reducing its tariff to meet a competitor who came forward. As a result the board would lose all its town customers and would be left only with rural customers.
It should be remembered that the boards have a duty to supply. They cannot refuse to supply power to people. There is a charge for connection, as we have debated in this House many times. There is no argument about higher costs. One noble Lord from Scotland mentioned certain areas in which delay on a line would cost £100,000. Of course no one saw that as realistic. If the area board is left only with the rural customers and a few people who do not care what they pay, in the long run that will be worse for everyone because the higher costs will still have to be borne by the supplier.
I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does not believe me, but that is certainly the industry's reasoning. The industry is perfectly happy to supply at the same rate to town and rural customers alike. However, if that is written into the Bill as proposed it will prevent entry into a normal competitive business situation should the time come when there are other suppliers. As I understand it, under the Bill other suppliers will be entitled to come in as secondary suppliers and licences will go out at other levels.
As I pointed out, water is not a parallel. There is not the same element of competition involved. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised the issue of discrimination. I believe that I have covered the point. But this would be a reverse discrimination that might work just the wrong way. My noble friend Lady Elliot has made clear the importance of electricity to the farming industry and the difference that it has made over the years. I accept what she says; indeed we all accept those arguments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who pointed out that there were differences in these amendments.
I do not agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not think that he has understood the full implications of my remarks. He said that the rate should be the same within each area. But that would not apply. Each area will have both types of area to supply: the more densely populated, cheaper area and the more expensive area. One could not do this by area; it would not work in the same way.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness that my understanding of the kind of competition that will arise as a result of this measure is not at all in line with her interpretation. I believe that there will be a certain amount of competition at the generating end and a certain amount of competition in the supply to large industrial consumers. I cannot see for many years competition in the supply to domestic consumers, which is what the noble Baroness has been discussing. I do not believe that that is a feasible proposition under this legislation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is the concern of the electricity authorities that they will be painted into a corner. They do not foresee it

1179
happening immediately, in the next three to five years; but after that there is a possibility that secondary and further licences granted would enable people to supply within limited areas. In choosing the areas they would pick those with maximum profit. Anyone coming into business as a competitor will clearly look for where the greatest profit is. Such suppliers will have no obligation to supply any person in the country, remote or not remote. They will be able to offer their supply in any area that suits them. Certainly this is how the industry sees the position. This is why the industry is so very concerned about this amendment. It does not believe that the situation is parallel with that of the water industry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? Is she saying that the industry is so concerned about possible competition that it must have a reserve power to give detrimental treatment to rural areas to be able to meet that competition? That is what it sounds like.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, no. The noble Lord is trying to turn my argument on its head. As I explained previously—and I shall repeat it—the electricity authorities are perfectly happy to supply urban and rural areas at the same price. If a competitor comes in to undercut them, to take away all their business in the urban area, leaving them with only the rural area, it could create an adverse effect for the area board on the overall costing of the supply. Where the same charge has been guaranteed for everyone, the only people left to be supplied would be the rural customers. They would be paying higher prices with no discrimination against them because they would be the only people being supplied. It would all be supplied at the same price, but much more expensively than if they had been able to retain a competitive base and supply some of the profitable areas as well as the less profitable ones. I can see that the noble Lord has a further comment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I find the argument quite incredible. If the noble Baroness is correct in her argument that a new firm can come in and be competitive to the extent that it will take away all the urban business from the established business, then there is something radically wrong with the established business, or we should not go ahead with this Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I shall quote figures which have no relevance. If you are paying 10p per unit and you get a leaflet through your door to the effect that you can have all your power at 5p or 7p a unit, would you not think twice about it? I certainly would.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is not a new argument. We have seen this cherry picking in
1180
transport. People take the profitable routes. No one wants the unprofitable routes. Anyone looking for a new opportunity looks to where profit can be made, It would mean that the electricity industry as it now exists could be left with the duty to supply. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made the point that it might consider whether or not it would extend into a rural area. There is an obligation to supply. If someone asks for a service in the most remote area, the electricity authority has to be willing to connect him. There is the duty to supply—not without cost, but certainly with obligation. This is where its hands would be tied. It has a duty to supply even the most unprofitable area. If it has an overall pool of supply with the good and bad mixed together, it can make a much better go of it than if it ended up with only the unprofitable section. That would force costs up for the rural area. On those grounds I oppose the amendment.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that in a competition for domestic supply there would be a conflict as to the ownership of the supply lines. Would there not be a danger of getting the wires crossed?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I have listened with interest to the variety of points that have been raised. I shall attempt in my few remarks to respond to some of the questions that have been put. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for differentiating between the various amendments before us and for drawing our attention in particular to the fact that Amendment No. 1, which is the first in this grouping, has a general application to consumers overall.
Clause 1, to which Amendment No. 1 relates, simply gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint the Director General of Electricity Supply and sets out the provisions which apply to that appointment. We do not feel that it is appropriate that it be used as a clause for assigning duties to the director. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, that is properly handled in Clause 4.
The central purpose of the Bill is to create a climate in which fair competition will develop and flourish. My noble friend Lady Gardner's understanding is perfectly correct. Where it is appropriate to protect consumers against unfair discrimination we believe that we have ensured that the necessary safeguards have been provided. As my noble friend Lord Trafford pointed out, Clause 20 of the Bill therefore prohibits a public electricity supplier from showing undue preference or exercising undue discrimination in fixing his tariffs. The public electricity supply licence provides similar protection in respect of contract sales. The licence requires that the terms offered to contract customers should not be materially more or less favourable than those on which it supplies, or offers to supply, to comparable contract customers. This will ensure that, for example, the problems which arose in respect of the pricing policies of British Gas and which were referred to the MMC, resulting in fundamental changes being made to those policies, cannot arise

1181
in respect of electricity sales. Your Lordships may be reassured that our proposals already contain the necessary protections for consumers in this respect.
Furthermore, if—as this amendment proposes—the director were required to protect consumers without discrimination, he would be obliged to treat all consumers on the same basis and not just in relation to prices. He could not differentiate between them in any way. This would create obvious and unworkable difficulties. For example, the conditions in the public electricity supply licences which require licensees to make special arrangements for the provision of services for the elderly and disabled would not be permitted; nor would the condition requiring licensees to produce a code of practice on the payment of bills setting out the assistance available to those in difficulty; nor would the related condition, which requires the licensee to adopt a special procedure for dealing with customers in default, be permitted. These conditions are designed to provide valuable assistance to those groups. They have been warmly welcomed by consumer organisations generally and indeed, I believe, by Members of your Lordships' House. It would be an enormous step backwards to prevent those arrangements being made.
The amendment would also have the effect of preventing the director from taking account of the essential differences in the requirements and characteristics of industrial, commercial and domestic consumers which distinguish them from one another. He would be unable to allow suppliers to offer different tariffs to those different classes of customer. Nor would individual customers be able to enter into contracts with their supplier on any terms which differed from those for other customers. For example, ICI would have to be supplied on exactly the same terms as an ordinary domestic customer.
These limitations would not only apply to public electricity suppliers and their customers. The duty would apply to all consumers. The amendment would, therefore, require the director to ensure that there was no discrimination between a public electricity supplier's customers and those of a private electricity supplier—first and second tier suppliers. He could not, therefore, allow second tier suppliers to supply customers, or offer to supply potential customers, at a lower price than the public electricity supplier. The reverse would also apply. That was the point that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes was making.
Your Lordships will appreciate the consequences of this. I have said that fair competition is the central theme of the Bill. With no prospect of competition there would be no opportunity or incentive for new entrants to come into the market. The director would have to ensure that all customers of all suppliers were supplied on the same terms. That is a totally illogical and retrograde step and is of no benefit to consumers.
4 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but perhaps she should reflect on
1182
what she has been saying. I believe that she said that what her noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes stated was right. But what her noble friend said is completely incompatible with the whole section of the Bill on licensing of supplies. Clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on all say that no one can enter the supply without the permission of the Secretary of State and the director. They say that they must give reasons why they are allowed to supply. They say that the licence must include conditions which, if the amendment were passed, would certainly include non-discrimination against rural areas. Those of us who have been mystified by the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, are even more mystified by the Minister saying that her Bill is compatible with what she said. It is totally incompatible.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was coming on to deal with some of these points more specifically, but perhaps I can take the opportunity to say that new entrants into the market will require licences. But the noble Lord has not satisfactorily explained how the licence conditions, which may operate against each individual licence holder, should be made general in a way that will fix prices among all licence holders.
I now turn to Amendment No. 32 and I hope that I shall pick up some of the other points as I go through it. This is the closest amendment in the grouping to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley which was defeated at Committee stage. The whole point of our proposals is that they are designed to give protection to all consumers. We believe that the fairest way of achieving that is to ensure that one group's costs are not unfairly subsidised by imposing additional costs on other groups. It is wholly reasonable therefore that prices should reflect costs. Certain of your Lordships appear to be seeking to give preferential treatment to consumers in rural areas because it is feared that any change in the current tariff system would unfairly discriminate against rural consumers. If that is based on an assumption that rural consumers impose the highest costs on their suppliers, I remind the House that, of all the area boards, the one with the highest operating costs—my noble friend Lady Gardner did not mention it—is the London board, which has no rural consumers at all.
I can also confirm what my noble friend Lord Trafford asked in this respect. I remind your Lordships of the assurance given by the area board chairmen of England and Wales and the chairman of the South of Scotland Board that they expect to maintain the current system of tariffs for domestic customers for five years after privatisations, which will cover the transitional period. I assure your Lordships that suppliers will not be permitted to load their costs on to, say, rural consumers, commercial consumers or any other group of consumers simply so that he may increase his profits or undercut his competitors. Because of the duties placed on him, the director will be looking very closely at prices to ensure that the requirements of the Bill and the licence are being adhered to. That will include the requirements of Clause 20, which prohibits a supplier from showing undue preference or

1183
exercising undue discrimination against any tariff customer or group of tariff customers. That will ensure that a supplier cannot offer a lower price to one class of customers or to an individual customer or group of customers within that class simply to undercut a competitor if it was not justified on the basis of the true costs of providing those supplies.
Should the director consider that a supplier's pricing policy does not conform with those requirements, he will have the necessary powers to require him to rectify the sitution. Nobody has suggested that in carrying out his duties the director general would not be giving rural customers fair treatment. That is certainly not the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to proverty in rural areas, I should have thought that it is very difficult for him to justify such an arbitrary cut-off. There will always be people in all areas who experience difficulties. To take an example, we are all well aware of the present problems in the inner city areas. I cannot see any justification whatever for requiring consumers in the inner cities who already have problems to subsidise the costs of supplies to those in rural areas. There is no justification for doing so. I believe that it is totally illlogical, just as it would be if we suggested that any other group of consumers or another class should be given preferential treatment.
Reference has also been made to a similar debate on the Water Bill. I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady White, who, while expressing concern about the need to protect rural customers in that context, made the point that it must be recognised that electricity is open to some kind of competition, whereas for water there is no choice. That is absolutely correct. There is a real and fundamental difference between the industries. For electricity not only do we have the competitive pressure from other electricity suppliers, but also the competitive pressure from competing fuels. It is that difference which justifies and necessitates that they be treated differently.
On this question of monopoly of supply, it is right to emphasise that there are two types of supply licence specified in Clause 7. It is true that the public electricity supplier has an obligation to supply within the area, but he has no monopoly. Suppliers granted licences under Clause 7(2) will have a right to supply premises specified in their licence and to compete with the public electricity supplier for customers. We believe that that is an important element of competition permitted by the Bill.
We believe that the duty placed on the director by Clause 4(3) in respect of prices ensures that the interests of all consumers are protected. We cannot endorse a proposal which would give preferential treatment to one group at the risk of disadvantaging others. I hope that I have demonstrated why we cannot support this amendment.
I turn now as rapidly as possible to Amendments Nos. 60 and 61. We believe that Amendment No. 60 is unworkable. It would prevent a public electricity supplier from discriminating between any person or class of persons when fixing his tariffs. However, the clause would still permit the supplier to exercise due
1184
preference when doing so. It would simply not be possible for a public electricity supplier to show due preference if at the same time he was prevented from exercising any discrimination between his consumers. I remind your Lordships that it is in the consumers' interest that a public electricity supplier should be permitted to exercise due preference or due discrimination.
For example, there will be cases where the demand pattern of a customer enables the supplier to optimise his operations and thereby reduce his costs. That is clearly beneficial to all his customers. Therefore it would be reasonable to permit him to offer terms to that customer reflecting the benefits of that particular sale to the supplier. A specific example affecting many customers would be the Economy 7 tariff, but the same factors would also apply to the various load management arrangements which currently benefit the industry. Therefore there is a demonstrable need for suppliers to be able to show discrimination or preference where it is due, and on that basis I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 61 seeks to protect rural consumers in particular from discrimination through the public electricity suppliers' tariff systems. In this case I have to say that the amendment is unnecessary. The wording of Clause 20(4) specifically prohibits a public electricity supplier from showing undue preference to any person or class of persons, and from exercising undue discrimination against any person or class of persons. This would, by definition, include rural consumers. There is no need for the additional qualification that has been proposed.
The provision in the Bill will prevent unfair pricing practices such as predatory pricing, where the only justification for charging different prices is the convenience or policy ends of the supplier. A supplier would not, therefore, be permitted to offer a lower price to one class of consumers, or to an individual consumer or group of consumers within that class, simply in order to undercut a competitor.
Your Lordships are aware that the area boards—acting in accordance with a similar requirement under the Electricity Act 1947—currently offer the same tariffs to all customers within the same class. I remind your Lordships, however, that they are not bound to do so. I know that much concern has been expressed about the explicit provision in the Bill that permits a public electricity supplier to charge different tariffs in different areas, cases and circumstances. I must emphasise, however, that this power is not new: the area boards have had precisely the same power for over 40 years. Our proposals have not changed that position although they have clarified it. In that context I remind your Lordships that the area boards have of course, given a welcome assurance that they expect to maintain that system for a five-year period.
Nor are the provisions of the Bill the only constraint on suppliers. The public electricity supply licence contains conditions which reinforce the provision on undue preference. A licensee will be prohibited from cross-subsidising between any of his separate businesses; for example, between the supply of electricity to his tariff and contract customers, or

1185
between his supply and appliance sales businesses. Secondly, the licence specifically prohibits the public electricity supplier from supplying at different prices unless those differences reasonably reflect differences in the costs associated with the supply.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about preferential capital investment in urban areas. The duty placed upon public electricity suppliers by Clause 10(1) is to maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply. That applies throughout the supplier's area.
I realise that I have spoken at length but I felt that I should put the record absolutely straight on this important matter. I hope that my remarks will have convinced many noble Lords who may have been in doubt of the reasons why the Government do not feel able to accept any of the amendments in this grouping.
As regards Amendment No. 1, I shall not reiterate the arguments but I must point out that its effects would be so widespread as to wreck the whole basis of the Bill. I urge all noble Lords who support the principles of the Bill to vote against it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will give way I should like to ask her to say a little more—
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am perfectly in order according to the rules of this House. I asked to interrupt the noble Baroness and she kindly gave way. I now intend to ask the question.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that nobody justified the subsidies from one set of people to another. For many years I was a member of the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board. It was constituted as such for a specific reason. In the setting up of the electricity industry it was understood that one of its vital jobs was to provide power to those who until then had been denied it. The whole of the North Wales area was then enabled to become an efficient supplier for produce and dairy food to the Merseyside area. That subsidy was paid by the large users in Merseyside to the hill farmers in North Wales.
If the Government subscribe to the point of view that there should be no subsidy from one set of people to another, what will be the position in five years' time when all the network which the present Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board maintains in the hill farms of Wales needs to be renewed at a tremendous cost? Who will pay for that? Will it be the board, thereby using its facilities to make a profit in the industrial area, in order to pay for the network, or will the people in North Wales have to pay for its renewal? If that is so, then the cost visited upon the hill farmers of North Wales will be that again the area will become denuded.
1186
There is no other form of power such as gas and therefore it will mean that North Wales will revert to its position in 1945, when it was practically denuded. Quite simply, does the Minister agree that when that tremendous expense is required it should be subsidised by someone in order to enable the people in North Wales to live there?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the example quoted by the noble Lord entirely justifies the Government's opposition to these amendments. That is precisely the kind of deal that we wish to allow the area boards to carry out. I assure the noble Lord that there is no possibility of a public electricity supplier being permitted to charge differently simply on the basis of geographical location. The noble Lord's worst fears are certainly not justified.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I took four minutes to open the debate and I shall try to end it in the same time. I believe that enough time has been spent on it and a decision must be reached on the principle. I shall first try to comment on a few remarks which I believe to be important.
The noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Hylton, spoke about costs. I must remind the House that the cost of distribution is only 20 to 30 per cent. of the whole cost. The main cost lies in the generation. In that regard I agree with noble Lords opposite that if there is to be competition there will be competition there. One will not get competition in a village such as Little Tooting (if there is such a village) which I quoted during our discussions on the Water Bill.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Trafford raised the point that there are powers and the Bill contains the words "not to discriminate". I am sorry, but I must now agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
The words contained in the paragraph are reasonable words. I go further, because they are the kind of words which were contained in the Water Bill. The Government then accepted an amendment on this issue and I shall quote what was said by my honourable friend Mr. Howard on 3rd July, when the amendment was before another place. He said that there was a need for further protection for rural customers, and he said:
"A direct consequence of the amendment is a substantial additional reinforcement for consumers in rural areas". [Official Report, Commons, 3/7/89; col. 50.]
I am sorry but if it applies to water, then it applies to electricity.
Regarding the set of amendments and the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peyton, I see them all hanging together with the possible exception of Amendment No. 1. However, certainly Amendments Nos. 32, 60 and 61 must be read in conjunction and cannot be separated one from the other.
I was confused by what my noble friend Lord Renton said. Either I have it wrong or he has it wrong. He wanted all consumers in one particular electricity area to be treated equally. That is what my amendment says. Perhaps I can put that in agricultural terms by saying that there is no question of pigs being more equal. We are all equal in that

1187
area, and these amendments are drafted in that way. If they are incorrectly drafted, I shall redraft them; but I should like the principle to be decided now. We have wasted enough time and have had enough Second Reading speeches.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised the question of Scotland. Of course, there is the nasty sore of the North Scotland Board which has been granted the privilege of equal charging. I asked in Committee: what is the difference just because the north of Scotland has a lot of hydro-electric power? In Wales there are two nuclear power stations. I just cannot see the difference.
My noble friend Lady Gardner treated us to a Second Reading speech. I can only repeat that the competition will be in the generation and not in the supply.
I was pleased at the way in which my noble friend Lady Hooper started her remarks, and I thought I was going to get on all right. She said that it is the Government's desire to protect the consumer, and that that is written into the Bill. I must admit that later on, when she commented on my Amendment No. 32, she said the opposite. Therefore, I feel that I may have to join some of your Lordships who do not understand this Bill. I believe that there are very few who understand the Bill completely.
Concerning my amendment, at the end of the day the noble Baroness was talking about charging ICI the same as a domestic consumer; and she said that that would be a consequence of my amendment. That would not be so. My amendment says that the director general and the Secretary of State should pay particular regard. If the electricity plcs go to the director general and the Secretary of State and say, "Look, we want to charge this", if they think that is reasonable then they are entitled so to do. I should like to tighten that further but I cannot, and I do not believe that it would be fair. However, I do not think that that is a valid point.
I am sorry to say that my noble friend gave me no satisfaction over her original wish not to discriminate against those least able to protect themselves because there will never be any competition there. All noble Lords know that the purpose of my amendment is perfectly clear. It may be that the drafting is wrong, and I agree with my noble friend that I am suspicious about Amendment No. 1. However, I do not believe that we can continue like this, and I shall put this matter to the House. If the drafting is wrong, I shall redraft it or ask the Government to do that for me on Third Reading. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 91.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Airedale, L.

Birk, B.

Ampthill, L.

Blease, L.

Ardwick, L,.

Blyth, L.

1188

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Monson, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Moran, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carter, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Moyne, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Radnor, E.

Ezra, L.

Raglan, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Sharples, B.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Strange, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thurlow, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Walston, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Whaddon, L.

Kinnaird, L.

White, B.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Longford, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wise, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Bessborough, E.

Eccles, V.

Blatch, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bolton, L.

Elles, B.

Borthwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gibson, L.

Caccia, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Caithness, E.

Grantchester, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Harvington, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Havers, L.

Cockfield, L.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hesketh, L.

1189

Hives, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Hood, V.

Norrie, L.

Hooper, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Pender, L.

Killearn, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Knutsford, V.

Prior, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

McFadzean, L.

Rees, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Renton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Margadale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Suffield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trafford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Melson, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 4.33 to 4.36 p.m.]

Hong Kong
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement about Hong Kong, which I visited from 2nd to 4th July. I held extensive discussions with members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, with professional people, entrepreneurs, students and others.
"There can be no doubt that the appalling events in Peking have badly shaken confidence in Hong Kong. It is of the first importance that the Chinese Government take early, tangible and sustained action to begin restoring confidence in China's intentions towards Hong Kong. We shall be pressing them strongly on this.
"There has been understandable pressure on this country to grant a right of abode to all British passport holders in Hong Kong. I had to explain that this House would not support an indefinite and open-ended commitment of that kind. It would test our capacity in all kinds of areas—housing, employment, transport, inner city services—on an unprecedented scale. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reached a similar conclusion.
"I was, however, able to assure the people of Hong Kong that we can and will take action in a number of fields. First, on the question of nationality, we want to enhance people's
1190
confidence to remain. We are working urgently on a scheme which will make some provision for people in both the private and public sectors on the basis not simply of connections with Britain but also the value of service to Hong Kong.
"Secondly, at the European Council in Madrid we alerted our Community partners to Hong Kong's problems. I am also in direct touch with the other countries which will attend next week's Economic Summit in Paris. We shall continue there and elsewhere to mobilise the support of the international community.
"Thirdly, I was able to confirm as common ground that the joint declaration, with its prospect of the greatest possible autonomy, remains the best foundation for Hong Kong's future. We have identified a number of ways in which Hong Kong's traditions of freedom can be further protected. In particular there is scope for reviewing the rate of progress towards representative government. In this, the wishes of the people of Hong Kong will continue to be fundamental to our approach. We also favour a Bill of Rights entrenching essential freedoms. The Hong Kong Government are announcing today that they will introduce such a Bill as soon as possible. It will form part of the existing law and be able to continue after the transfer of sovereignty. We shall also take up with the Chinese Government two matters of special concern—Article 18 of the draft Basic Law, which could enable the central government in Peking to declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong after 1997, and, even more important, the question of the stationing in Hong Kong of Chinese military forces.
"Events in China have overshadowed Hong Kong's most immediate practical problem: how to cope with the 48,000 boat people who have found shelter there. I visited two of the camps housing boat people and saw the screening of new arrivals now being conducted under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
"The Hong Kong Government and people have dealt magnificently with an appalling problem. But Hong Kong is being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers. The vast majority of those reaching Hong Kong are not political refugees. They have no hope of being accepted for resettlement anywhere else in the world. Hong Kong cannot offer them a home or a livelihood.
"At the recent conference in Geneva, resettlement pledges were made for all those who qualify as refugees. The report of the Select Committee recognised that it is intolerable for those who do not qualify as refugees to have to spend years in camps. Their only future lies back home. I have discussed this problem with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister both in Geneva and in London. Official talks are continuing. I am hopeful that we shall be able to find a solution which enables boat people to return to Vietnam in safety and dignity.
"Hong Kong's predicament reflects the facts of its history and geography. These are inescapable. But, in approving the joint declaration, this House

1191
undertook to make the best possible provision for Hong Kong after 1997. We shall pursue the measures I have outlined with vigour as part of that wider and unchanged commitment".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. When the Foreign Secretary decided to visit Hong Kong he knew, as we all did, that he would have a very critical reception; and so it turned out. Sir Geoffrey conducted himself with dignity and courage. It is also noteworthy that the members of the Hong Kong community, apprehensive and uncertain as they are, gave him a reasonable hearing.
As the Foreign Secretary said before he set out, he went to listen. The Statement contains his reactions. It does not go into detail on the main issues, and I do not complain about that at this point. However, I think that a clear, full and detailed note of government policy will be required fairly soon so that the people of Hong Kong know more precisely where they stand.
Regarding nationality, the renewal of confidence is of paramount importance, as the Statement says. We note that a scheme is being prepared, and we welcome that. Can the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, say when that is likely to be announced, and what options are being considered? For example, is one of those options a quota system operating over a period of years? Is he aware that a selective scheme based on wealth alone would not be acceptable to the people of this country?
We note and welcome the reference to the international community in the Statement. That is necessarily vague at this point, and in due course we shall expect a fuller report of the responses of the European Community and the other countries referred to.
We also welcome the steps proposed to protect the traditions of freedom, including a Bill of Rights. We note that some of those need further negotiations with the Chinese Government, for example Article 18 of the draft Basic Law, and the stationing of Chinese forces in Hong Kong. That has now become a matter of first importance, and we support the Government's proposal to discuss the matter further with the authorities in the Chinese Republic.
On democratic development generally, can the noble Lord say whether the Government propose to speed up elections to the legislative council and other bodies in Hong Kong? We shall obviously have to return to all those matters and to have a debate when the Government are able to furnish us with more clearly defined objectives and policies.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable and learned friend in another place. I too should like to pay tribute to the conduct of Sir Geoffrey Howe in the very difficult circumstances in which he found himself in Hong Kong. On the other hand, conduct is rather different
1192
from policy. The policies set forth in the Statement are hardly likely to achieve the purpose which is required, which is to allay the apprehensions of the people of Hong Kong faced with the alarming situation in which they find themselves.
The Statement which has just been read to us is rather more full of aspirations than actions. It says "It is of the first importance that the Chinese Government begin … restoring confidence in China's intentions". It is equally important that the British Government restore confidence in the British Government's intentions by taking action which is urgently required. Sir Geoffrey says "We want to enchance people's confidence to remain". "We alerted our Community partners to Hong Kong's problems". "There is scope for reviewing the rate of progress". "We favour a bill of right".
One feels like saying "Why don't you do something, or tell us when you are going to do something?" Above all, some guarantee to the people of Hong Kong is required that their lives and liberties will be assured. It is not enough at this stage to alert our partners in the European Community. It is generally agreed by the Select Committee, by both parties on these Benches, and by Mr. Martin Lee of Hong Kong, that if we are to assure the people of their liberties and their safety, we must mobilise the European Community, the Commonwealth and the United States to undertake to accept people from Hong Kong should the worst possible case occur. I should like to know what steps the Government are taking now to put that into practice.
The situation is serious because the prosperity of Hong Kong depends on keeping people working there; and on the prosperity of Hong Kong depends its future after 1997. I hope that we shall not have to depend on aspirations but that there will be decisions and action by Her Majesty's Government in the very near future.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all thank both noble Lords opposite for their kind tributes to my right honourable and learned friend. His was not an easy task to undertake; but I am grateful, as I am sure he will be, for the kind remarks which have been made about his visit.
Perhaps I may deal first of all with the more general point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Statement is one rather more of aspiration than of action. I am sure he will appreciate that the Statement was made immediately upon the return of my right honourable and learned friend. He went to Hong Kong to glean at first hand the views of those that he described in the Statement. Obviously, it is aspiration; action will follow.
I have given some indication of the kind of action which will go part of the way—though not the whole way—towards meeting some of the anxieties that have been expressed to my right honourable and learned friend on his visit. More will follow in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me when that would be. I cannot give him a precise date, but I am sure he will understand that much is under active consideration at the moment; and as soon as the Government are in a position to make an announcement, it will be made.

1193
So far as concerns the ideas that have been considered, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into absolute detail. He raised one particular topic with me, and referred to a quota system. All such matters will naturally be under consideration. I would rather go no further today than saying that we must try to look at all the options to meet the anxieties of all those people, whether they are on the private side or in the public sector. They are all under consideration at the moment. When my right honourable and learned friend is ready he will be able to make an announcement about it.
The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Bonham-Carter, asked about mobilising the international community. As the Statement makes clear, we have already spoken to our European Community partners. We have spoken to Commonwealth governments and to the United States. The matter will be raised at the Paris Summit. We shall continue to urge the wider international community to join us in doing everything possible to restore confidence in Hong Kong in the way that both noble Lords would have us do.
I have to say, however, that mobilisation of a view is a necessary precursor to the kind of detail about which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me the other day. We have some time to go. It is difficult, as the noble Lord will imagine, to get into the kind of detail which he urges me to do. I acknowledge that there is force in that argument but I hope he will understand that mobilisation and understanding of the problem are all important. That is what my right honourable and learned friend has already set about and I am sure will carry forward to great effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the pace of democratisation. I have made it clear that, as a result of the actions in Peking, the Government are already looking carefully at the programme for advancing and consolidating effective democracy in Hong Kong. During his visit my right honourable and learned friend discussed this with the governor and his advisers and with representatives of a wide range of opinion in Hong Kong. Recent events in China have inevitable caused people in Hong Kong to think very deeply about democracy. It is already clear that plans for 1991 will have to be looked at again. We must also consider what more should be done before 1997.
I would caution the noble Lord on one aspect. We should not try to rush a judgment while views in Hong Kong have not yet crystallised. Indeed, OMELCO has indicated that, following the events of 3rd and 4th June, it will have to look again at the position it reached in May. But I have said before, if Hong Kong can reach a clear consensus, that would be a significant development to which we would certainly want to respond. I hope that that is a fair answer to the noble Lord's point.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He said that even the committee indicated that more should be done to alert the international community. The
1194
report is being studied at the moment. A response will come forward in the usual way in due course. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement and for their tributes to my right honourable and learned friend.
Lord Walston: My Lords, on these Benches we should like to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his courage and dignity. I wish that we could congratulate on more than that but it is quite clear from what has been said and from the Statement—and not surprising—that his visit was not what one would call a resounding success.
I have only two points to make in addition to those made by the noble Lords who have already spoken. One was touched on in the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. I refer to the potential role of the Commonwealth in dealing with this matter. While I am as ardent a supporter of the European Community as anybody in this Chamber, I am also an ardent believer in the Commonwealth. It saddens me that the Commonwealth has not been asked to take a more prominent role in solving this extremely difficult and very human problem. I urge the noble Lord and his colleagues to continue, as they say in the Statement, to raise the matter at this week's Economic Summit in Paris and elsewhere. I hope that that "elsewhere" will include a specific approach—perhaps through the Commonwealth Secretariat in London—to rallying the support of the Commonwealth, and in particular, of those members of the Commonwealth with large areas of land and relatively few people living in them. The Commonwealth could come to the help not only of the people of Hong Kong, should the need arise, but also of those unfortunate refugees from Vietnam—I deliberately call them "refugees" whether they are political or not—who are living in such appalling conditions in Hong Kong and are imposing such a burden on the people of Hong Kong and are themselves suffering in such hopeless squalor. I urge the noble Lord to take the lead in rallying support and co-operation of the whole of the Commonwealth to help to solve this problem.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point that it is important to examine further the scope for the Commonwealth to play the role which he seeks. We are in a sense at the beginning of this operation. As my right honourable and learned friend made plain, the matter will be raised in Paris. Indeed it has already been raised. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already indicated that this will need to be discussed at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in October.
Countries from within the European Community have already played a role in regard to the Vietnamese boat people and those who have been resettled from camps throughout South-East Asia.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and I should like to be associated with the tributes to the Foreign Secretary. I regret that while he was there he was subjected to one small piece of studied discourtesy. I welcome much of

1195
the contents of the Statement. I welcome the part concerning the Vietnamese boat people. I welcome too the more flexible administration of the Nationality Act and of the immigration rules to allow more Hong Kong people to come to the United Kingdom fairly soon if they wish, and the working out of a more general plan later. I should like to know whether that interpretation of the Statement is correct.
Above all I welcome the fact that Hong Kong's future will continue to be built on the Joint Declaration and that the Government foresee the Basic Law being stiffened to implement it. The problem is that, to have confidence in their future under the Basic Law, the Hong Kong people are asking for right of abode in this country. They are backed in this by the governor, the Executive and Legislative Councils and a formidable number of people. On the other hand, the two major parties in this country will not have it. There is an impasse which is threatening the development of the future of Hong Kong and of British policy and interests there. I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate this at some future date.
Meanwhile, should we not bear in mind that this crisis is due not to a recent action of the British Government but to what the PLA did in Peking? Would it not be a help if the Chinese Government were to volunteer—and to volunteer soon—that they do not envisage the PLA being stationed in Hong Kong except in time of war?
5 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for welcoming what is contained in the Statement, what my right honourable and learned friend said about the Vietnamese boat people and what is being looked at in terms of flexibility. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—and I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into detail—what I said when I repeated the Statement earlier and spoke from this Dispatch Box was that all this is being looked at and it is to be hoped that an announcement will be made before too long. I certainly agree with him that it is important to build on the magnificent achievement in the Joint Declaration and, as I have indicated, stiffen the Basic Law where it is practical to do so.
The noble Lord raised the matter of the right of abode. Of course, I realise the force of the argument in support of that and, indeed, the feeling with which it is put forward so regularly by people in Hong Kong. However, as my right honourable and learned friend made perfectly plain, granting automatic right of abode to the several million people there is simply not a realistic option; it would create the most immense practical difficulties, and I must say that I think that that is a view which is shared by the great majority of Members on all sides of your Lordships' House. Indeed, it has been confirmed by the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place. Perhaps I may paraphrase what my right honourable and learned friend said in Hong Kong the other day: to hold out the promise of an insurance policy knowing that a future British Government could not possibly deliver would be a gross deception.
1196
I turn now to the issue of the actions of the People's Liberation Army being largely responsible for what has occurred in damaging the confidence of Hong Kong. I certainly take the point that the noble Lord made. However, I think that, if he reflects upon what I repeated in the Statement, he will see that what he spoke of is just the sort of action that is under consideration.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, listening closely to the Statement which my noble friend read to the House, it seemed to me that the British Government are engaged in discussions with the governments of other countries with a view to mobilising some sort of rescue operation should circumstances ever overtake Hong Kong which would make such action necessary. If that is the correct interpretation, then that is tantamount to saying that were such appalling disasters to overtake Hong Kong, the British Government would not let down the people of Hong Kong. Further, if that interpretation is correct, has that fact been made as clear as that to the people of Hong Kong?
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may trespass for a moment on a related aspect of the matter and ask my noble friend if he can comment—if not immediately, perhaps at some point—about something which I understand is shortly to take place; namely, a visit by a top level British industrial and commercial mission to China. It seems to me that if that is the case, then it is shamefully soon after the events in Tiananmen Square and ought not to take place.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend's interpretation of the mobilisation of international support is broadly correct. Of course, if matters were to go so horribly wrong as he envisages, there would also be a commitment upon us. Indeed, my right honourable and learned friend made that perfectly plain on one or two occasions when he spoke in Hong Kong. However, it is extremely important that the ground is prepared for the kind of detailed work which we all hoped it would not ultimately be necessary to bring into effect. That is why my right honourable and learned friend has taken the step so far of stimulating interest in this serious problem in the United States and in the European Community, and among Commonwealth countries. Therefore I very much take the point made by my noble friend.
So far as concerns the industrial mission—that is, the Sino-British Trade Council mission, which is being looked at—I can reassure my noble friend that it is currently under reconsideration.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it may or may not be that my noble friend will wish to comment upon this, but I should like to put forward a point of view from this Bench. It relates solely to the main issue and not to the Vietnamese boat people. I should like to say that, not only for his personal dignity but also for his extremely sensible, restrained and responsible attitude, the highest possible praise ought to be given to my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary.
I think that I should also express from these Benches, from which perhaps it comes better than

1197
anywhere else, the fact that I am extremely grateful personally—as I hope the House is—for the extremely responsible attitude of the official Opposition, both in another place and here through the person of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. It is a most difficult and dangerous situation and there is an immense temptation, in view of the revulsion which we all feel about certain matters and which the Hong Kong people probably feel even more deeply and acutely than we do, to take a populist attitude, which is the worst possible attitude we could take.
Our responsibility to the people of Hong Kong is not only what may or may not happen in 1997, when I shall probably not be alive; it is here and now, and in the immediate years which follow. We have seen one of the most appalling events of recent history. In my opinion the overriding duty of Her Majesty's Government, and their duty to Hong Kong, is to persuade the rulers of China during the coming eight years—and I start from now—that it is immensely to their advantage to make it wholly clear that they intend to abide by their agreement and retain the rights and privileges of the people of Hong Kong; and that it would be the most serious disadvantage to them if they were to frighten or bully those people or to create a situation in which they took over a wilderness instead of a going concern.
I am quite sure that my right honourable and learned friend has taken exactly the right line. Further, I hope that he will have the support of the whole country in so doing.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his very wise words. I should say, however, that I fully expect him to be with us in 1997, contributing to our debates in the way that he always does. I am also grateful to him for his tributes to my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary. I too should like to be associated with his words as regards the attitude of the official Opposition and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. As he says, it is important to remember that this is a time for cool heads, both here and in Hong Kong. It is an extremely difficult issue and one which will not be solved overnight. That is precisely why my right honourable and learned friend undertook his visit to Hong Kong: he wished to hear opinion at first hand. I am also sure that we must consider the matter coolly and carefully and give it all consideration, as indeed is being done at present.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister for a little more information as regards two points which he made in the Statement. First, he spoke about the Basic Law. However, can he say whether work has resumed in that connection? I am sure that he will agree that everything should be done to maintain some movement and action in Hong Kong in order to fill the dangerous vacuum which is clearly visible.
Secondly, as regards the Vietnamese refugees, I should like to say how happy I was to see that the Secretary of State during his very short time in
1198
Hong Kong still managed to visit two of the camps. However, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no question of forcible repatriation of any refugees? Does he agree also that negotiations with the Vietnamese Government should be more on the basis of aid programmes and trade? Surely the Minister will agree that boosting Vietnam's economic development is the long-term answer to the problem of increasing economic migration and that, at the worst, the isolation of Vietnam will in no way prevent those refugees going to Hong Kong, nor will it make it easy for them to return.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I said on a previous day that work on the Basic Law had been suspended. That position holds good at the moment, but of course we shall need to consider how to take forward the points that my right honourable and learned friend made in his Statement, when he said that we have to look at certain Articles of that Basic Law and will need to make representations to the Chinese authorities about it, in the way that we have played a part in this matter throughout. That is a matter which is under consideration at the moment. I cannot say when the work will restart. The noble Baroness will appreciate why it has been suspended in the meantime.
As regards the Vietnamese boat people and forcible repatriation, we have no interest in using force. Our aim is merely to follow up the principle which was clearly established and was part of the comprehensive plan of action that was endorsed at Geneva: that all those boat people who do not qualify as refugees must find their future in Vietnam.
We are working for arrangements to enable those people to return to their country of origin, safely, in dignity and without fear of punishment. On Vietnam's economic and trade position, while I take the point that the noble Baroness made, I am sure that she will understand that we still await the withdrawal of the Vietnamese army of occupation from Cambodia.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that the Government will emphasise the fact that the Hong Kong people do not wish to come here in great numbers; that they merely need some kind of insurance policy? Too much propaganda has been put around to the effect that 3.5 million people will descend suddenly on Great Britain. It is difficult for Hong Kong people to understand why they do not have such an assurance when they see the number of people from other countries who are living here. Each time that there is a demonstration, I am amazed at the thousands of people—Arabs, Iraqis, Iranians and so on—who are obviously living here. From the demonstrations outside the Chinese embassy, it appears that a number of Chinese people are living here. We must show the Hong Kong people that we are behind them if the necessity arises for them to come here. When I was there I gained the impression that they do not want to come to Britain, but that they want some assurance that we are behind them.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of people in Hong Kong who are looking for an assurance. The noble Baroness is suggesting

1199
that a sort of blank cheque be written for an unknown possibility of which we cannot foretell the outcome. That is why to hold out the idea that I described as an insurance policy, knowing that a future British Government could not possibly deliver on it for the immensely difficult practical reasons that I gave, would be nothing other than a great deception.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the Minister has repeated again today that the Government accept responsibility for mobilising other countries in the event of some refuge being needed for Hong Kong people. I want to ask him again about the position of Taiwan. I fully understand tthe Government's difficulty. We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan. I do not expect diplomatic relations to be resumed, and I do not press for that; but is it not a possible refuge for some of the people from Hong Kong? In the coming years do not we need to consider the possibility that if it were ever needed some of them could go there? It is Chinese. Its democracy is developing fast. Our trade relations with it are good. Can the Minister say at least that we hope that over the coming years our relations will improve, and that eventually we may be able to talk to Taiwan in some way about the possibility of it providing part of the insurance system that he has talked about?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that it is impossible for me to look into the future in relation to Taiwan. As he is aware, we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. I am equally aware that the people of Hong Kong and the international community as a whole will understand that Taiwan might have some role to play in the future, but that is not a point for me.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we have been 33 minutes on the Statement. It might be appropriate to return now the Report stage of the Electricity Bill.

Electricity Bill
5.15 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the Question is that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I apologise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understood that the Question would be put that we should continue with the Report stage. Before we continue, perhaps I may remind the Minister that she described Amendment No. 1 as a wrecking amendment. I am sure that that was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I do not believe that it was a wrecking amendment. Nevertheless, that was the Minister's view. In the light of the fact that the House carried Amendment No. 1 on a Division, do the Government still wish to continue with the Bill on Report?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am, glad that the characteristic sense of humour of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has not deserted him. In winding up the debate, my noble friend Lord Stanley recognised that we were voting on the principle of the amendment. He also recognised that the amendment might be defective. The Government will of course be considering their position. However, I feel sure that in the meantime we should press on with the many important amendments before us.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Schedule 1 [The Director General of Electricity Supply]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 73, line 18, leave out from ("may") to ("appoint") in line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the principle that we have just discussed is one that the Government will take seriously to heart. With the amendment we are back to our normal detailed scrutiny of the Bill and one's desire for some enlightenment. The schedule is headed:
"The Director General of Electricity Supply".
The schedule refers to staff, and as drafted the paragraph reads:
"The Director may, with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as he may determine".
The Government's argument, which appears in the Notes on Clauses, is that there are similar provisions in corresponding schedules of the Gas Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Fair Trading Act. The Minister's noble colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said at one point that he was becoming fed up with arguments such as, "We have done it before and therefore we propose to do it again". I raise the point to seek genuine enlightenment rather than to be given the answer, "We have done it before and we want to do it again". The substantive point is: why cannot the sentence leave out the reference to the Treasury in order that the director may do his job by appointing such staff as he may determine, on the assumption, which noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have made before, that he knows what he is doing and can be trusted to do the job?
If we are discussing general Treasury control—I stand second to no one in my support for general Treasury control—that does not have to be written into the Bill because it is taken for granted in all matters to do with Whitehall. We do not have to write the provision into the Bill to get Treasury control; we get Treasury control whether we like it or not. We should not lose Treasury control if the parenthetic statement were taken out. We should just have a rather better drafted Bill showing that we accept that we want the director to do his job correctly, efficiently, with great support from the Government and—if the Bill is passed—with great support for the carrying out of a good job from noble Lords on our side. That is the reason that I put this down. Assuming that my argument is right, I should like to see some of the other legislation where this appears amended, so that it can be brought into line the other way. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I cannot see the point of the amendment in the light of the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Lord opposite said that such matters would need Treasury approval anyhow whether or not it was in the Bill. Therefore, the proposal would not make a pennyworth of practical difference. On the other hand, it is the practice in similar statutes—and the noble Lord cannot brush this aside—to lay down that where we are concerned with the manpower arrangements of central government and attached organisations, the approval of the Treasury is required. It seems strange in this Bill to omit that provision unless there were some intention that the situation should be different from that under other Bills. Therefore the amendment appears pointless.
On the merits, it must remain the duty of the Treasury to keep a close eye on the manpower requirements of these public organisations. Your Lordships know perfectly well that, however well intentioned, they all have a tendency to expand, to find additional jobs, to increase their complements. It is therefore very useful in practical terms—and I have some experience of this—for the Treasury to be able, quietly but firmly, to keep their ambitions under control. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as your Lordships may remember, I take a different view from that expressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I have expressed that view so often that I do not wish to weary noble Lords again, except to say that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State and, incidentally, the Chief Secretary, are all members of the Cabinet. They all have collective responsibility. That we should have to write this into the Bill would merely be a reflection of the failure of the machinery of government. It is sheer nonsense and I hope that one day the Treasury will drop it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, effectively regarded this as a probing amendment. Therefore, I shall respond by saying that the Office of Electricity Regulation will be a non-ministerial government department. It is entirely customary for all Civil Service manpower issues to be cleared with the Treasury.
We believe that it would be completely wrong to ignore precedents or, as the noble Lord suggested, to change the precedents which appeared in the Gas Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Fair Trading Act and to try to establish a new policy in this area. It is a necessary part of the control of public expenditure that there should be this requirement, and I understand also that it is necessary to write it in. However, I wish to assure your Lordships, as I did previously when we discussed a similar issue, that the director will be given all the resources he needs to perform his functions effectively and efficiently and that Offer will have fully adequate staff and resources to carry out its important job.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have intervened both for and against the amendment as well as the noble Baroness. Clearly the amendment has been put down in order to obtain some enlightenment and some simplicity. However, I have not received quite the enlightenment that I wanted. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, even though she may not be able to answer me at this precise moment, if this phrase were not in the Bill, does she imply that the director general and his office would not be subject to Treasury control?
My point is that there would be Treasury control anyway. In a sense I invert the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that because it would be subject to Treasury control anyway, why write it in? I take that to be the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Renton and it is certainly mine. I should be extremely interested to know, if we did not write it in, whether there would not be Treasury control. That would certainly justify the phrase being there; but it would be news to me. I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to say any more at the moment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I should say that he system of funding is that Offer will be financed by vote. Its costs will be clearly identified and, as with all the costs of regulation, they will be recovered through the licence fees.
However, in terms of public accountability my understanding is that the requirement is written in, in relation to Treasury consent, in order to make the position absolutely clear, particularly in the light of the precedents that exist in the area.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I know how busy the Government are but if it were possible for them to write to me giving a definitive statement, as a lifetime student of Treasury control I should be obliged have clearly made the points I wished to make. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Consumers' committees]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("Director") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish also to refer to Amendment No. 4. Not only is this a short point; it is also one which was dealt with at an earlier stage of the Bill. At the end of that stage I was left with a tender hope that it might lead to the Government having some thoughts on the matter and perhaps feeling it appropriate to do something to meet the views which had been expressed. I am disappointed, though not altogether surprised, that the Government have not seen fit to move on the matter.
To my mind the arguments are very simple. The consumers' committees will have a very important role. They ought to be independent of the director general and high ranking personages in the electricity supply industry. My advice is that they would like

1203
to be independent and that they should be aloof from someone like the director general. Therefore I very much prefer that the Secretary of State should be responsible for appointing them. I hope that even at this late stage the Government might consider that there is something in this point and indicate their willingness to meet it. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. An important principle is at stake here. We are privatising a basic industry and it is vital that it should be shown that the consumers' interests will be fully protected. Under this Bill as drafted it is intended that there should be consumers' committees but these committees will be the creatures of the director. The director's task covers not only consumers' interests but the interests of producers, distributors and everyone else involved.
It would be far better if the consumers' organisations had a separate identity. That can very easily be achieved by accepting the modest amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. This would make it appear that they are independent bodies and that they can approach the director, the Secretary of State or any of the other bodies concerned. But if they are appointed by, and are responsible to, the director, their freedom of action would thereby be circumscribed. They would not have the independence, for example, that the comparable body has in the gas industry. I cannot for the life of me see why it is proposed in the case of electricity that there should be a different situation to that under gas. They are two basic energy commodities which were previously publicly owned but are now to be privately owned. The least the Government can do is to make sure that the consumers' interests can be seen to be fully and independently protected. This change is one that I hope very much the Government will accept.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am not in favour of this amendment because I believe the whole idea of privatising the electricity industry is to take it away from political control and make it responsible for its own affairs, but with an adequate degree of protection. I do not consider this amendment achieves that purpose. All it does is immediately to bring the Secretary of State and the political element of control back in. I do not think this provision offers any advantage to the consumer world. I consider it would be a disadvantage.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it appears to me that these amendments are correct and ought to be supported. It seems to me, from memory, that all the precedents point in this direction. When industries were nationalised in the past, no one thought that the consumers' committees should be appointed by the head of the nationalised industries. They were appointed by the Secretary of State to make them separate from the nationalised industries. It would be quite wrong for the director to appoint the consumers' committees in this case because, with the best will in the world, it would be quite impossible to
1204
convince the public at large that the committees were not in the pocket of the director general. It would be quite impossible to convince people that the committees were independent. They should be independent, and be seen to be independent. I believe the amendments should be supported.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the arguments which have already been put forward. I accept those arguments. However, as a last point, I wish to ask the Minister when he replies, to deal with the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, which I found a little troublesome. Her view was that if the Secretary of State made these appointments they would be political ones. The Government have usually been at pains, when we on this side of the House have occasionally suggested that the Government act politically in these matters, to point out that they simply appoint the best people for the job. I hope that, whatever the noble Lord feels, he will not accept the argument that the Secretary of State cannot appoint the consumers' committees because he cannot be trusted not to appoint political people. It seems to me that the key argument here is the one that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon made—other speakers also made this argument —that what is required here is a modicum of independence in appointing the best people. I believe the Secretary of State is the right person to do that job.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil realises that we have been here before. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur answered as best he could the points which have again surfaced in this debate. I think at the time that my noble friend said the Government should have the good sense to go away and reflect upon his anxieties. That is indeed exactly what the Government have done.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur made clear when these amendments were moved in Committee, that the day-to-day responsibility for protecting the interests of consumers in the electricity industry will lie with the Director General of Electricity Supply. It is clearly right that he, with his general responsibility for the regulation of the industry, should establish and appoint the new consumers' committees. I might add that the director is not part of the industry, as I understand it.
Part of the duties of the new committees will involve investigating and determining certain matters on behalf of the director and providing him with a source of lay advice on consumer matters. Given that the committees will be working closely with the director, it is surely sensible that his should be the primary responsibility for their establishment.
Nonetheless, we recognise that the Secretary of State should have a legitimate interest in the appointment of the chairman of the committees, given his own duty under Clause 4 of the Bill of protecting the interests of the consumer. This clause therefore currently provides that in making his choice of chairman, the director must consult the Secretary of State, and then consult the chairman in

1205
appointing the rest of the committee. The Government feel that this is the appropriate level of involvement for the Secretary of State and will guard against any suspicion of irregularity in any of the director's appointments.
Therefore, I feel that to remove the director entirely from the appointments process would, first, undermine his ability to carry out his own statutory duty to protect consumers' interests and, secondly, involve the Secretary of State to a greater degree than the Government think appropriate in the appointments process. Part of our purpose in making these new arrangements is to minimise the extent to which political judgments—that matter has been referred to—may affect appointments to the new consumer bodies.
In answering the points raised in debate about political appointments, I would say that what we propose simply removes the doubts which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked why the position under electricity is different from that under gas. I have in reply to say that this House, and indeed another place, have already agreed that the arrangements for water and British Telecom are affecting what we are doing in this particular Bill.
As regards the question of a separate identity for the consumers' committees, surely the answer is that that is already there. They have independent statutory duties and powers. So, in answer to my noble friend's very genuine request that we look carefully to see whether we have this particular matter right, I should say that we happen to believe that we have. Perhaps, however, I have not persuaded my noble friend to that end.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I must confess to some disappointment although, as I said before, no surprise. However, it would be churlish if I did not say that I appreciated the courteous way in which my noble friend replied to my amendments. I have to say that I think the argument he adduced, that the chairman should be appointed by the director after consultation with the Secretary of State, is at least a two-edged argument. If the Government are prepared to go that far, it would seem to me that they are at least recognising that there is some cogency behind the demand that the Secretary of State be involved.
For my part, I believe that the director general will be so deeply immersed in the affairs of the industry that it would be as well if the consumers' committees were appointed by someone who was a little more remote, as the Secretary of State will be. I am very far from saying that Secretaries of State are possessors of great virtues, but I feel that remoteness on this occasion is one. I do not think it is worth pressing this any further, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships' House. However, I wish to ask my noble friend whether the opinion of those who are currently members of consumers' committees has been sounded on this matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that to be the case as regards the situation South of
1206
the Border. I have certainly done that to my own satisfaction with the consumers' committees North of the Border.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. However, I see no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 5 were to be agreed to I could not call Amendment No. 6, as it would pre-empt it. I now call Amendment No. 5.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 5.
Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subject was debated, discussed and views were expressed upon it in Committee. It seems to me, however, that the answer given by the Government in Committee was not at all convincing. For my part, I believe that if the consumers' committees are going to be useful, the last thing we want to have is some kind of camouflaged expert to be a member of the committees. There is a very strong argument for insisting that the director general of the supply industry should be someone:
"who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply services".
I do not think that that is in any way necessary for the representative of the consumer. The consumer committees can avail themselves of expert advice as and when they need it. They do not need to be saddled with camouflaged experts in their midst, who may not be as up to date or as expert as they think they are. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will have further thoughts on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, although the two amendments are grouped together they are only slightly incompatible. Their theme is not exactly the same but they are related. As I understand it, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, proposes that the industry expertise should be vested in the director themself rather than in the consumer committee. I understand the argument and it is one to which I subscribe to some degree. Amendment No. 6 refers to the appointment of other persons with interests in that area.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I realise that the word "interests" is misleading. It does not mean that they should be persons who are involved in the electricity industry. It means that we should appoint people who have some interest in consumer energy matters. I apologise for the fact that the wording is rather dreadful. I can only say in expiation of the sin that subsection (4) is itself appallingly worded. It ought to read:
"In appointing persons to be a member of a consumers' committee, the Director shall have regard to the desirability of appointing a person".
My excuse for my infelicitous style is that the style of the Bill is itself infelicitous.

1207
My point is that the committee should not consist of people who turn up at the first meeting and say that they are delighted to have been appointed, they do not know anything about the subject, and will someone tell them what they are supposed to do. Therefore interest in these matters should be at least one of the criteria for appointing some of the members.
The purpose of Amendment No. 6 is to place on record the criteria which we hope the director will employ in appointing the people concerned. However on past performance one would not expect the Government simply to accept such an amendment, however sensible it may be.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend, when replying for the Government, will indicate whether subsection (4) means that all the members of a consumers' committee have to be experts in electricity rather than in representing the interests of the consumer. If so the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is necessary.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I find myself in the interesting position of agreeing with both amendments. However, that is impossible because if we have one we cannot have the other. As I read subsection (4), it suggests that the director shall have regard to the desirability of doing something. That presumably means that, having had regard to the desirability of doing so, he may do something else. Presumably he is permitted to consider appointing persons who have experience of this, that and the other, but he might appoint people who do not have that experience. That would be a very desirable arrangement, one which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would desire.
However, the subsection does not say that. I believe that the Government should take the matter away and amend the subsection to indicate that the director can appoint people who have other experience. The experience desirable for a member of a consumers' committee would not be experience of, or capacity in, matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply. It would be experience of, or capacity in, matters relating to the consumption of electricity.
If I am right in supposing that the director can appoint people who are experienced in the provision of electricity and also people who are experienced in supply, I should probably be happy with the subsection as it stands. However, the Government should make that clear. I should like the clause, if it cannot be wholly rewritten, to have the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peston added at the end.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we have been over this ground before. It is rather unfortunate that the Government did not take note of noble Lords' concerns and introduce their own amendment to widen the membership of the committees. I have had experience of consumer committees in the coal industry. It was certainly not a condition that everyone on those committees should be a mining engineer. There were no mining engineers on the
1208
committee; they were people who represented the consumers—housewives and others who could speak up on the consumers' behalf.
I find it very puzzling, in the light of the debate in Committee, that the Government have not at least seen fit to say that although some members of consumers' committees should have had experience of the provision of electricity supply services others might have different backgrounds. If this is meant to be a consumers' committee it seems odd that apparently no persons will be selected as consumers to be members of it. I should like to press that point on the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I believe that this subsection should be considered again by the Government. We are dealing here with consumers' committees. We ought to ensure that it is consumers who are represented.
I have always agreed with the Government when the Opposition have tried to elaborate the representation on various public boards so as to make them representative of too many particular interests. Here, however, there is an attempt at specifying a particular interest. And, as has been pointed out, it is expressed in a rather odd way. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Moyne that they all have to be people who have experience of, and have shown capacity in—which must mean that they are very good at—
"matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply services".
What are they? We seek guidance on that phrase, and we find it in Clause 5 where a distinction is made between generation, transmission and supply of electricity. When we look at Clause 5(4) we find that "supply" means,
"supply through electric lines otherwise than to premises occupied by a licence holder for the purpose of carrying on the activities which he is authorised by his licence to carry on".
That is an entirely new concept of electricity supply which will, as I understand it, arise for the first time as a result of the Bill. It seems rather strange that representation on consumers' committees should be tied to that new and unusual definition. I therefore think that we should look again at the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I find this a slightly strange clause, although I do not particularly support either amendment. Amendment No. 6 is slightly ambiguous. I had taken the phrase "interests in the area" to mean that the people concerned possibly had some financial interest geographically in the area. I consider the wording not satisfactory.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. She is right to find the wording ambiguous. I fully accept her comment in that respect. I tried to make it unambiguous by explaining what I meant, which is to some extent what the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Ezra, have said that the amendment means.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The clause is probably just an attempt to explain what is meant, but it states,
"shall have regard to the desirability of appointing".

1209
If I were the person making the appointments, I should consider that it was not necessarily desirable to appoint all the people on that basis. When I served on the North Thames Gas Consumers Council, I knew nothing whatsoever about gas other than as an ordinary person. I found that being someone with common sense who knew a little about social services and the way that ordinary people live was just as useful as anything else. I do not understand exactly where the consumers' committees tie in with knowledge of the electricity industry unless, as at present, there must be consultation in terms of setting tariffs. When one reaches that more technical aspect, there is a need for someone to study those financial questions. But, if the consumer body is simply to deal with people's complaints and to assess whether justice is being done and whether the supply industry is meeting its objectives, people with common sense and a wide general experience of any type would be perfectly suitable. Thus, although I do not agree with either amendment, there is perhaps a need to look at the clause.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I apologise for intervening when I have not taken part in previous debates. However, having heard what has been said, I cannot help wondering whether the subsection should not read, "that the Director shall have regard to the desirability of there being on consumers' committees one or more persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply services".
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government will consider taking away the amendment, as has already been suggested, and, rather than have an expert as a member of the committee, have an expert who is an adviser to that committee on technical matters but is not a member of the committee.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have already discussed the matter, as my noble friend said when he moved his amendment, the first of the two in this grouping.
I believe that what is of greatest importance in membership of the consumers' committees is that the director should be able to appoint persons of high quality who are capable of turning their hand to the very wide spectrum of matters relating to electricity supply and who are committed to the interests of the customer. I do not believe that there is any difference between us on that point.
Perhaps I may deal first with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As I read it, it means that the director would need to have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who himself has shown capacity in appointing other persons. I assume that the noble Lord intends that the director should appoint other persons with interests in the area. I am not sure who,
"other persons with interests in the area"
1210
would be. I do not think that it is desirable that the committees should become representative bodies for various specialist interest groups. The members should be lay people, chosen because they seem the best individuals to fulfil that important and demanding function.
It is the director, with the overall responsibility for regulation of the electricity industry and for consumer protection, who will be best placed to decide who will be the most effective members of consumers' committees. In making those choices, he will be able to take advantage of local knowledge and the experience of the chairmen. The Government's aim is to ensure that the consumers' committees provide real and effective representation for the consumer. We believe that the criterion for appointment set out in Clause 2(4) will help us to achieve that aim.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil that I have contemplated carefully what he has asked us to do in relation to the matter. Just to show that the Government do bend now and again, I propose to accept his amendment, but must reject that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, 1 can hardly manage to get to my feet. Dumbfounded and stricken as I am, almost helpless with surprise and amazement, I am just able to force through my lips some few words—albeit lame words—of thanks, to my noble friend for his grace in accepting the amendment. I believe that I can modestly say that the Bill is a great deal better without those rubbishy words in it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Consumers' committees]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 74, line 20, after ("Director") insert ("after a proper assessment of remuneration").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also—slightly to my surprise—to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 13.
The main purpose of the amendments is to clarify certain aspects of Schedule 2, which deals with remuneration. Perhaps I may try to guide noble Lords through the different parts. Under the terms of Amendment No. 8, we require—again, I should be interested to know whether the Government argue that the assessment is implicit in the Bill—an explicit rather than an implicit assessment of the nature of the remuneration that would be paid. That point is not unrelated—and it is useful to ask about it now—to my earlier amendment concerning Treasury control.
In other words, it may well be that the relevant answer to my concern here—where, instead of saying,
"as the Director may determine",
we say,
"after a proper assessment of remuneration"

1211
—is that, having already obtained the blanket Treasury controls, he will have to do that anyway. But, nonetheless, I think that that point is worth raising. Certainly anyone who has had experience of matters of that kind is always intrigued as to how the remuneration is arrived at and what the relevant criteria are. That is the reason for the amendment.
We ask to leave out the word "gratuity" in Amendment No. 9 because we should like an explanation. I understand the use of the word "pension". I think that I understand the meaning of the word "allowance". I have proposed to leave out the word "gratuity" because I do not quite know what its effect will be. Again, this is a plea for information or advice as to what the Government have in mind when they refer to "gratuity". For example, does it mean that it is tax free or something special of that kind? That is what we should like to know.
Those are the more important amendments. Amendment No. 13 would delete the words:
"with the approval of the Treasury".
I suppose that I could be hoist with my own petard if I should be asked, "Why am I not putting it in here?", but if I can put that argument and be defeated, as I was earlier, then I can change my argument now and ask, "Why do the Government want it here?". In other words, I am perfectly willing to accept consistency as a principle at least. Sub-paragraph (4) would then simply be the drafting consequence of doing things the other way round.
Those are the points that I should like to raise. We are not pressing for something major. We are just interested in knowing precisely what the schedule has in mind. Any help that the noble Lord can give us on that matter will be useful in the future when this measure is put into pactice. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, Schedule 2 of the Bill simply lays down a standard set of financial parameters for the consumers' committees, all of which are well precedented in other public bodies of this kind. The committees are not intended to be composed of salaried officials but of lay members of the public who have a contribution to make in the field of consumer protection in their areas.
Perhaps I may deal with the noble Lords' proposals in order. First, the payment of remuneration to the chairman of the committees, which will be determined by the director, will of course be subject to proper assessment—indeed it is difficult to see how a judgment could otherwise be made. I feel therefore that that amendment is unnecessary.
Secondly, the noble Lord has brought to our attention that it is important to explain how one construes "gratuity". The phrase "pension, allowance or gratuity" is quite standard, and is typically used for bodies of this kind which are not composed of salaried officials. In no sense is the word intended to connote an underhand payment of any sort. It simply provides the director with a degree of flexibility to take account of individual circumstances. For instance, a chairman, for
1212
whatever reason, may have to resign his post earlier than originally expected and it might be appropriate to provide part of his entitlement to remuneration in the form of a one-off payment or gratuity. I am advised that that of course would be subject to normal tax law. The proposed amendment would remove part of that flexibility and, we believe, would be undesirable.
I come now to the matter of Treasury approval. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, knows very well—although perhaps my noble friend Lord Renton will not agree with what I have to say—that the requirement for Treasury approval for payments to the chairman and members of the committees is necessary. It must surely be right that public expenditure of that kind is subject to the same scrutiny as any other. It would be quite improper to exempt the consumers' committees from the normal rules of financial propriety in the way suggested.
I am absolutely certain that when he moved this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Peston, expected the reply that I have given to him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wonder whether I may press the noble Lord on two points in his response. I think that we accept that the approval of the Treasury is necessary since funds voted by Parliament are to be used for this purpose. I am grateful to him for explaining that point. The expression "proper assessment of remuneration" is designed to smoke out the Government as to what they intend as remuneration for a chairman of such a committee. Will it be in line with the normal practice of remuneration of what used to be called quangos (and are perhaps no longer so called)? Will it be in line with commercial practice? Will he be paid the equivalent of the chairman of the National Westminster Bank? I think that we need a little more guidance from the Government on that issue.
With regard to the point about "gratuity", I understand that, where a chairman of a committee leaves early, as the noble Lord said, for a variety of reasons and perhaps for reasons which are outside his control, there may be—and I say "may" advisedly—a case for making an ex gratia payment. I am not convinced that there is ever a case for making an ex gratia payment to somebody who takes on the business of being a chairman of a consumer committee. But there may be a case, and if so the noble Lord still has to make that case a little more strongly than he has done.
However, if there is a case to be made, surely the payment should not be called a gratuity. It should be called an ex gratia payment. That is the expression in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act and, as the noble Lord rightly said, it should be subject to the provisions of that Act. We have stumbled over the word "gratuity" because it seems to us to convey something other than an ex gratia payment along the lines which the noble Lord has explained to us. I should be grateful if he could enlarge on his remarks.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall indeed try to explain to the noble Lord the two points which he raised. First,

1213
with regard to the level of remuneration, I believe that the way that this will be arrived at is for the director to make a proposal. I imagine that the proposal made by the director will not ensure that the chairmen of those committees will receive remuneration commensurate with that of the chairman of the National Westminster Bank or the like. However, this is something that will, I think, be in the hands of the director.
The other amendments mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, perhaps come in at this point. One can see the worth of the Treasury involvement. My understanding is that Treasury approval will have to be given to any proposals of that sort. That is the insurance against a level of remuneration that is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. With regard to the level in cash terms, that is not for me to say at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, questioned the use of the word "gratuity". As I mentioned in my reply, the phrase "pension, allowance or gratuity" is quite standard. The level will depend on the individual circumstances. I recall that at Committee stage the noble Lord was very concerned about these matters and about gratuitous sums of money being passed down for particular services rendered. I believe that the term as used is defensible and I hope that the example that I gave will indicate the kind of circumstances that we have in mind.
Lord Peston: My Lords, having introduced the amendment perhaps I may thank the Minister for his reply, which is extremely interesting. With regard to Treasury control, I place on record, because it is of interest to note, that the remuneration referred to here in all its forms will be fully charged to the consumer and will not be public expenditure in the form in which I think that would be correctly defined. At least that point is worth considering, since we understand that it is the intention for the cost of consumer committees to be recovered from licence holders through licence fees. It is by no means clear that it is public expenditure. The Minister may wish to reflect on those words. I am not saying that it makes his remarks on Treasury control erroneous; but, as a matter of interest, I think that it is not public expenditure. Having said that and having thanked the Minister for a very clear and informative answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 74, line 34, after ("such") insert ("remuneration and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. It may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 20 and 21, although, I hasten to add, I do not regard these amendments as being consequential one upon another.
As are all our amendments to Schedule 2, these are probing amendments. They were tabled in
1214
Committee but for reasons of time were not moved. They are therefore purely exploratory, to find out a little more what the Government have in mind on certain aspects of the consumers' committees.
Amendment No. 11 is intended to deal with the question of loss of remuneration. That is taken up in Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 20 refers again to the question of loss of remuneration.
If the consumers' committees are to have a correct balance, not unlike local authorities, a ere should be some arrangement for those who cannot afford to take the day or afternoon off to sit on these committees, whereby they do not suffer loss of earnings if they do so. We would certainly press on the Government the thought that these committees should not simply be full of middle class ladies who have nothing better to do. We should like to see a wide spread of people who are in business and who earn their own living and can represent the views of the consumer. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I cannot resist rising to that challenge. However, I have been asked on other bodies to bring up the point that many women are disadvantaged by phraseology such as has been employed here. "Loss of remuneration" provides only for a person in paid employment. If a woman has small children or an elderly relative to be cared for, and she has to pay someone to look after the child or relative, that is covered only by a phrase that is used in the magistrates' courts claim, "other expenses necessarily incurred". I could not accept the amendment without such a phrase as "other expenses necessarily incurred", which covers women in those circumstances. It is either both or neither phrase.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is looking for clarification with these amendments. I hope that I am able to satisfy him. It is the Government's intention that the consumers' committees should provide real effective lay representation for all electricity consumers. It is clearly inappropriate that members of committees should be remunerated in the same way as chairmen. It is to be expected that some, like the chairmen of the existing consultative councils, will have to make a greater commitment than other members of time and effort in running the committees. It is therefore only right that they should receive adequate recompense for so doing. However, as is accepted practice in other bodies of this country. the members will receive allowances when engaged on committee business. The expression "allowance" in Schedule 2 already covers allowances for loss of remuneration. This is clear from the context and contrast between the word "allowance" in paragraph 3 and the words "such of their out of pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of remuneration". Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord's amendment in this case is superfluous.
This approach to remuneration is well precedented in other consumer representative bodies, such as the Gas Consumers Council and the proposed customer service committees for the water industry.

1215
To create salaried committees would undermine the basic voluntary approach to consumer representation which has been followed in this country since the War by successive governments. It could lead to committees losing their distinctive lay character, and becoming indistinguishable from the rest of the staff of the director's office, so depriving him of a valuable source of independent advice. I am sure the noble Lord would agree that this would be quite inappropriate.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 enables consumers' committees, with the approval of the director, to set up local and other sub-committees. These may be created to ensure that all consumers in extensive, sparsely populated areas, like North Wales, should have a locally available representative body, or it may be decided that a sub-committee should be appointed to look at a particular policy area, for example, concerning the handling of complaints.
The Government have provided for the members of such sub-committees to be reimbursed for their travelling expenses and such of their out-of-pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of earnings. The noble Lords' amendment would mean that the members of sub-committees could be reimbursed for loss of earnings. The Government believe that it is right that the members of the consumers' committees should be reimbursed for loss of earnings, given their status as members of a statutory body.
But the role of the sub-committee members will be rather different, as they will be set up at the discretion of the chairmen of the committees and the director, and they may not necessarily be members of the committees. Their role will necessarily be more restricted, and we have therefore followed established precedent in dealing with their allowances.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Am I to understand that paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 allows loss of remuneration as an expense for members of a committee, and paragraph 6 debars loss of remuneration for members of a sub-committee?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, yes, that is correct. That is why I have gone into this aspect. We have looked at it very closely in relation to other Bills with which we have been dealing. The noble Lord will find it precedented in the Water Bill which has just passed through this House.
I must reply to my noble friend on the question that she raises. The compensation provisions simply make up for loss of existing remuneration. It is not the intention to provide new remuneration. I understand what my noble friend is aiming at in that regard, but that is the answer, however unsatisfactory, that I have to give.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as I understand it the phrase "out-of-pocket expenses" might well cover the point that I have made.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, yes, that may very well be so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I was slightly mystified by his last answer to his noble friend, that "that may very well be so". It is either so or it is not so. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to clarify that point and convey in writing to his noble friend the final Government view on the matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I shall sew the matter up with my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 74, line 42, at end insert—
("5A.—(l) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, meetings of the committee shall be open to the public.
(2) The public shall be excluded during any item of business where—

(a) it is likely, were members of the public to be present during that item, that information furnished in confidence to the committee by the Director would be disclosed in breach of the obligation of confidence; or

(b) the committee have resolved that, by reason of the confidential nature of the item or for other special reasons stated in the resolution, it is desirable in the public interest that the public be excluded; or

(c) the item relates to a proposal to refer any matter to the Director in pursuance of section 46(3) or 47(1)(a) or (4) of this Act.

(3) Except to the extent that the Director otherwise directs (whether generally or in relation to the particular case), the public shall be excluded during any item of business which relates to—

(a) the determination of any dispute referred to the committee under section 41(5) of this Act; or

(b) the investigation by the committee of any matter in pursuance of section 46(2) or 47(1)(b) of this Act.

(4) The committee shall give such notice—

(a) of any meeting of the committee which is open to the public; and

(b) of the business to be taken at that meeting (other than items during which the public is to be excluded),

as they consider appropriate for the purpose of bringing the meeting to the attention of interested members of the public.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur undertook in Committee to consider the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Peston, Lord Williams, Lord Ezra and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth on the question of public access to the meetings of the new consumers' committees. As my noble friend made clear, it has always been the Government's intention that there should be some meetings of the consumers' committees which are open to the public. This will help to spread awareness of their work, and provide direct access to grass roots feeling. In the light of what your Lordships have said, we are now persuaded that

1217
there should be a specific provision in the Bill and have therefore brought forward this amendment, which I am sure that noble Lords who have taken part in these debates will welcome.
We believe there should be a general presumption in favour of open access. But as the House recognised during the earlier discussions, in carrying out many of their specific duties, the consumers' committees will have access to commercially confidential information and, indeed, to the personal details of individual complaints. It would clearly not be right for meetings of the committees considering such matters to be open to the public. This amendment has been drafted to take account of this.
Noble Lords will note that the form differs from the amendment that they originally proposed, which would have brought the new consumers' committees under the ambit of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. However, the amendment before the House has been drafted to give substantially the same effect as the 1960 Act, but tailored specifically to the consumers' committees which this Bill will create. It will allow the committees the discretion to exclude members of the public where they consider confidentiality might be breached. The public will also be excluded when the committees are dealing with information furnished to them on a confidential basis by the director, or where they are considering any matters which fall within the committees' duties under Clauses 46 and 47, which come to the committee directly from individual consumers.
Where the committees will be acting on behalf of the director or where a matter has been referred to them by the director—for example, in determining disputes under Clause 41(5) or investigating certain types of complaint under Clauses 46 and 47—we have thought it proper to allow the director some discretion, so that he may decide that a matter is of such general interest that the meeting at which it will be discussed should be open to the public.
We have also provided for the committees to take such steps as are necessary to bring to the attention of interested members of the public notice of any meeting open to the public and the business to be discussed at that meeting.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the safeguards I have outlined are necessary to protect the interests of complainants. I hope they will agree to accept this amendment, which we believe to be a helpful step forward in ensuring that the committees are both accessible to the ordinary consumer, and will accurately reflect his views. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment which in part meets the concerns we expressed in Committee. I have just two questions on the amendment. Will he please explain to the House what items are to be considered to be in confidence? Will he also assure us in some suitable manner that the director, who will have to receive notices of all consumer committee meetings (whether they be in public or not, presumably, under the amendment) will have the appropriate staff to process the notices
1218
he receives and to decide whether or not they deal with matters of confidence or any matter which the director believes should not be revealed to the general public? The director's tasks are hard enough as they are with the small staff he is being allowed, but that would impose an extra burden on him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the intention here is sound and it is welcome. The machinery is very complicated. In addition to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I wonder whether my noble friend will explain this to me. It arises on subsection (2)(a) and (b):
"The public shall be excluded during any item of business where … it is likely, were members of the public to be present … that information furnished in confidence … would be disclosed in breach of [that] obligation".
It does not say who is to decide the likelihood. That is rather important. We all know that the committee will be advised by its clerk, that the chairman will take a decision or the committee will make a resolution. But under subsection (2)(b) we find that it is specifically provided that the committee should resolve the matter. This is an alternative to paragraph (a), not in addition to it or part of it.
Paragraph (b) reads:
"The public shall be excluded during any item of business where —the committee have resolved that, by reason of the confidential nature of the item or for other special reasons stated in the resolution, it is desirable in the public interest that the public be excluded".
I am trying hard to correlate paragraphs (a) and (b) in my simple mind. I should have thought that it would be much better to turn them into one paragraph so that we have it clear that it will be for the committee to resolve that the public be excluded in the circumstances arising either under paragraph (a) or (b). There would then be no difficulty. But unless we have something like that and the committee find the Bill as drafted with this amendment added to it, it will wonder who is to decide on the likelihood.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I welcome the amendment because it accepts in broad terms what we were seeking to achieve, but like other noble Lords who have spoken I am a bit dismayed at the complicated procedure. It is difficult to know at what stage the public will be allowed to stay and at what stage they will have to move out. There could be a good deal of time wasted on this whole issue. I wonder whether it is not asking too much if this could be simplified at a later stage so that people could know whether they were allowed in or not, without having to work their way through the whole Bill, a course which I feel would be necessary under this proposal.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, of course, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Renton, I shall study very carefully what has been said. I shall look particularly at what my noble friend Lord Renton has said in relation to the two paragraphs that he mentioned, to see whether any improvement could be made or is necessary to make it more intelligible. I believe that: the proposed drafting changes would leave the effect, as my noble friend said, exactly as at present, but I am quite willing to consider the matter again.

1219
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked what are confidential items. They are confidential if the director gives them to the committee on that basis, if the committee feels they are confidential or if individual consumer's affairs are discussed. The committee will decide that by resolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked whether the director would have enough staff. The answer which I know he will expect me to give and which I give him is: yes, there will be a specific provision within OFEL to deal with this matter.
I should like to study what my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have said. If I need to give any further explanation to noble Lords I shall write to them, and if necessary will come back at a later stage with a further amendment, should that be necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 75, line 2, leave out ("with the approval of the Director").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. These small amendments are probing amendments, as always when concerned with a schedule. They concern the establishment of sub-committees. I am seeking from the Government some reason why the director has to be involved in the establishment of sub-committees. If a committee decides that it wishes to establish a sub-committee, why should it have to refer to OFEL or OFAL, or whatever the expression is—
The Earl of Dundee: Offer, my Lords.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I thank the noble Earl. My second amendment, Amendment No. 18, seeks to find out what other sub-committees the Government have in mind that these committees should establish.
Amendment No. 19, if Amendment No. 17 is removed, gives the director power to ensure that unsuitable people—if I may use that expression—are not appointed to these sub-committees. As I say, these are probing amendments to explore what the Government have in mind. I should be grateful if the noble Lord will give us a proper response. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and again I shall try to explain the matter. Paragraph 6(1) (a) of Schedule 2 provides for the consumers' committees to appoint, with the approval of the director, local and other sub-committees through which the committees may carry out such of their functions as they may determine. In that respect he is right.
The ability of the committees to set up local sub-committees will mean that even in extensive, sparsely populated areas consumers can benefit from effective local representation. We have covered this ground already.
1220
However, it is equally important that the committees are able to evolve sensible working arrangements for the wide variety of tasks that they will have to perform. This is why provision has been made to allow the committees to establish, for example, small working groups to deal with subjects of particular importance. For example, it may be sensible to have a sub-committee charged specifically with dealing with complaints or looking at other defined areas of a committee's work. As I am sure noble Lords will recognise, there may well be occasions where it would not be practicable to engage the whole committee in looking at particular topics.
These amendments, however, would remove their ability to appoint the other types of sub-committee which I have outlined. I hope that the noble Lord will on reflection agree that this ability is important in order that the committee can carry out its work under the powers that it has.
Turning to the proposed amendments dealing with the relationship between the director and the committees, these would allow the committees to set up sub-committees without reference to the director, while subjecting the appointments to those sub-committees to the director's effective veto. This is hardly logical, as the director could by employing this veto effectively block the setting up of a sub-committee in the first place.
In any case, it is entirely appropriate that the director's approval should be sought when it is proposed to set up sub-committees. Not only is it ultimately the director's duty to protect the interests of consumers, but this is an area where the national co-ordination of policy which he will be able to provide is likely to be relevant. Furthermore, the director will have the responsibility of financing such sub-committees. As the noble Lord knows only too well, the money comes from the Government and has been voted by Parliament. We believe that that is the best way to proceed. I hope that in the light of that explanation he will understand why we have taken this line at this stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and I should like to ask one or two supplementary questions. In my view it would be normal for the committees to set up a sub-committee consisting of members of the committee, in the same way as the board of a company does. That would appear to be perfectly rational. It would be reasonable to delegate to the sub-committee the powers of the committee in the way that the board of a company would delegate to a sub-committee its full powers.
The situation begins to look a little odd where a committee can set up a sub-committee, the membership of which can be different to the membership of the main committee, as under paragraph 6(1)(b). Yet apparently that sub-committee can exercise exactly the same powers as the committee in the area in which it has been set up. I could understand that situation if it were the case that the sub-committee had to refer back to the main committee but that does not appear to be the case in the schedule as drafted.

1221
Secondly, I understand that local sub-committees may be needed. The noble Lord has indicated that, for instance, there may be a sub-committee dealing with consumer complaints. My problem with that is more or less the same. I understand that in the schedule as drafted a different set of people could meet in a different part of the world in order to deal with that important matter. I do not wish to pursue the argument but to place it before the noble Lord so that he may be able to respond.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I fully understand what the noble Lord is saying. It is that the sub-committees, members of which need not necessarily be members of the committee, could go off at a tangent and do exactly what they wanted. I understand that that will not happen because, in setting up the committee, the director obviously has a say and, as is normal in any company, the report from a sub-committee will go to the main committee for an ultimate decision.
The noble Lord says that there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that. Of course I shall look at the Bill to see whether there is a loophole through which a sub-committee could go off at a tangent. If that is the case, we shall close the loophole. However, I do not believe that it will be the case in practice, but I agree to see whether his point is valid.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I wish to ask whether the point is covered by paragraph 6(1)(c), which states that:
"The committee may … regulate the procedure of any such sub-committee.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with leave of the House yet again, I have said the director has an input into the matter. He will be interested in the practicality of the working of the sub-committee. However, I have undertaken to see whether the Bill is watertight and if not I shall make sure that it is.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I do not wish to pursue the argument. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, it is clear that the committee may regulate the procedure of any such sub-committee with the approval of the director, but the committee may say that any sub-committee can go off and do whatever it wants. That would be perfectly within the ambit of the schedule as drafted.
However, I do not wish to prolong the argument. The Minister has kindly undertaken to look at the matter and perhaps I can look forward to another elegant letter from him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 75, line 20, leave out ("financial") and insert ("calendar").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a relatively small matter. It is necessary for public accounts to be drawn up on the financial year. I do not wish to
1222
embark on a long debate about the origin of the financial year, although I shall explain it a little in a moment. However, it appears that committees of this nature would be happier in drawing up accounts on a calendar-year basis.
The financial year was a medieval invention. If I may digress I shall explain that 5th April was fixed in relation to Christmas. Christmas, 25th December, was the centerpoint of the medieval year and the conception of Our Lord was deemed to take place nine months earlier, on 5th April. As a result, the financial year was fixed. In the modern day that appears to be something of an oddity. I do not wish to enter the argument about whether the Government should now change to a calendar year. Nevertheless I believe that consumers' committees should be allowed the privilege of producing their accounts in a calendar year as does everyone else. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the amendment would have the effect of making the financial statements which the committees must produce cover calendar years instead of financial years. It would clearly be wholly illogical for these reports to be drawn up on a different basis from the rest of those accounts, and indeed from the accounts of the rest of the public and private sectors.
The noble Lord is well aware that governments work to 5th April, as do companies. We believe that it is sensible to take the same year so that the events of that year can be covered in the report which the consumers' committees must put forward. It may well be that he would prefer to see this on a calendar basis—and I was interested in his exposition of that matter—but from a practical point of view we see great advantage in sticking to the same year as the financial year of the bodies concerned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that the Government feel very attached to medieval tradition and, therefore, do not wish to change. In the light of the noble Lord's explanation that he insists on that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 75, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is customary in probing amendments of this nature where we do not understand quite what is involved simply to invite the Government to leave out a certain sub-paragraph. That is the object of this amendment which is purely probing.
I should like the noble Lord to explain the sort of circumstances the Government envisage under which the director may approve a statement or approve it with modification and what modifications he might consider appropriate. I am not sure that I understand the purport of this sub-paragraph. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could explain it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will find comfort in my explanation.

1223
The consumers' committees will be appointed by the director and will carry out certain of their duties on his behalf or jointly with him. It is therefore appropriate that he should approve their financial statements. It is the director who will receive the necessary moneys by vote from Parliament and will have to answer for their use. He would not be able to discharge this duty if part of his expenditure were outwith his control in the way suggested. It would be quite improper to exempt the consumers' committees from the normal rules of financial propriety in the way suggested. I believe that the effect of the noble Lord's amendment, which he says is probing, would be to remove the requirement for the director to approve statements of the committees' expenses submitted to him.
The noble Lord asked about circumstances for approval. That simply means that the director should be satisfied that the committees have incurred expenditure for the proper purposes; that is, the functions under the Bill. I do not believe that I can give the noble Lord any further explanation of that. It is something which will transpire between the director and the committees which operate with him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say what sort of modifications the director might consider appropriate? Is he going to cook the figures? What will happen?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the director has the power to look at the figures of a particular committee and he is of course given the power to say what can and cannot take place with the moneys provided.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I still do not have a proper answer, if I may say so in the kindest possible way, to what is the entitlement of the director to modify a financial statement provided by a responsible consumer committee. It has worked on, has decided to pass and will have forwarded the statement to the director. The director can approve it, or not approve it, on the grounds mentioned by the noble Lord. But what sort of modifications can he introduce?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, of course he can modify. He can have the report from the committee and can say yes or no to it. However, in saying no, he can modify by saying that in view of the budget to which it must operate the committee can do certain things and not do others. The powers in the clause give him the power to modify. Of course, in reality that will be for discussion between the director and the committee concerned. It could be that he asks the committee to cut its budget. He has the power to say no and also to make other suggestions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I do not wish to continue the argument. As the noble Lord says, in reality there would be a discussion between the director and the consumer committee. However, that is not what the schedule says. It says that the director can approve the statement,
"with such modifications as he considers appropriate".
1224
and not as he considers appropriate in consultation with the committee. That is quite a different matter. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider this point again and write to me. It is a very minor point but we must have it right if we are to scrutinise the Bill properly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 3 [Efficient use of electricity]:
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 39, after ("State"), leave out (", shall, after consultation with the Director,") and insert ("and the Director shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am tempted to move this amendment formally as a drafting amendment because it neither adds to nor subtracts from the purpose of the amendment of your Lordships' Committee which now appears as Clause 3 of the Bill. However, as a consequence and on reflection, we think that there is an imperfection in the drafting. In Clauses 38 and 39 it is clear that the responsibility for generating stations is a matter for the Secretary of State whereas responsibility for the fixing and adjustment of tariffs is a matter for the director general. Therefore, it seems appropriate that we should amend the clause to establish that it is not the Secretary of State who is responsible if action has to be taken on tariffs; it is the director general. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, of course, I am not going to ask the House to oppose the amendment. However, in saying that, I should make it clear that that does not tie the hands of the Government in another place.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may say that that is rather more warming than what I have read in the newspapers. However, I shall take what has been given to us. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [General duties of Secretary of State and Director]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
("Providing always that, in the fulfilment of their functions, they take steps to ensure that the impact of electricity generation, transmission and supply on the environment is kept to a minimum.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important point of principle and I am sad that it has come up at a rather late stage of your Lordships' proceedings today.
The whole question of the duties in Clause 4 and the relation between those duties and the environment is one which has exercised both ourselves and, indeed to be fair, the Government over the course of our deliberations on the Bill. The Government seem to have set their face against a

1225
general duty of the Secretary of State and the director to ensure that, in the words of the amendment:
"the impact of electricity generation, transmission and supply on the environment is kept to a minimum".
I should have preferred—I say this in the mildest possible language—the Government to have introduced a general duty under Clause 4, because that is the proper place to deal with the environmental issues raised by electricity generation, transmission and supply. I am not going into the generality of those issues. They have been discussed at considerable length and no doubt will be discussed again. They are the object of almost daily attention in the newspapers and the Government have announced that they are concerned in every way about environmental protection. Therefore it seems to me odd that the Government have set their face—I understand that negotiations have taken place to which I was not a party—against any insertion in Clause 4.
What impact does electricity generation have on the environment? Obviously it is enormous, taken from the global environment right down to the environment in our back gardens. What impact does transmission have on the environment? Again, obviously enormous, with major pylons built across the landscape and lines all over the place. What impact does supply have on the environment? Again, a major impact.
I should like the Government to think carefully and closely about this amendment. I believe that Clause 4 is the right place to embody in the Bill a position of principle such as this amendment proposes. Unless there is such a point of principle in an early clause in the Bill—particularly under the general duties of the Secretary of State and director—I am bound to say that I think the Government's commitment to environmental protection is open to doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I agree with the intention of this amendment to Clause 4 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Related to the amendments are amendments to Schedule 9 in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I welcome these amendments and I shall welcome them fully tomorrow when we discuss Schedule 9 in detail. Today I want to concentrate on the issues of principle affecting electricity and the environment. They are issues that I have raised repeatedly during the passage of the Bill.
The environment is not something that we can treat lightly in this day and age. If anything reinforced that message, it was the huge "green" vote on 15th June, a vote which I am sure we agree said little about the voters' attitudes to the policies of the Green Party and a lot about a large section of the public's concern for the environment. Dare I say that it also displayed a measure of discontent for the environmental policies on offer from any of the main political parties? For that reason alone it is important to get across the environmental message.
When the public knows how great an impact the electricity supply industry has on the environment,
1226
when it has heard the Prime Minister herself describe global warming as the greatest challenge that man faces in the late 20th century and when it expects the Government to seize opportunities to put flesh on its "green" bones, to find the environment tucked away in a schedule at the back of such a major Bill is not good public relations. However, this is of course more than an issue about public relations. There are sound reasons why the environment should be mentioned in Clause 4 and treated as one of the Secretary of State's key strategic responsibilities.
The Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply will be taking decisions which are bound to affect the environment: on a whole range of issues under their duties to promote competition and to satisfy electricity demand. It is false not to recognise that. I am not wholly convinced that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, achieves this in the best possible way, but I believe that the intention behind it is the right one. I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider whether she can find a way of mentioning the environment in Clause 4. In doing so, I hope that she will not simply reply that her amendments to Schedule 9 meet this concern. They do not. The Secretary of State's duties in the revised Schedule 9 are confined to his role in granting, or refusing, consent for power stations and overhead lines.
Important though that role is, it excludes a range of other responsibilities which he and the director have under Clause 4—ensuring security of supply to consumers, protecting their interests and promoting competition. In each of these areas decisions taken can have a significant effect on the environment. For example, questions will arise about overcapacity and whether we have more power stations than are necessary. Another example is the extent to which encouragement is specifically given to the new, cleaner technologies and to energy efficiency. A further example is the effect which electricity pricing has on demand and capacity requirements.
I maintain that these environmental implications should be specifically accounted for in the Bill. The Minister knows, because we have had repeated and helpful discussions on this point, that she would receive acclaim from the principal voluntary and environmental organisations and from the Government's statutory advisers—the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council—if she were to accept the case for an amendment to Clause 4.
In her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will my noble friend say whether she will consider an amendment to Clause 4(3) giving a duty to the Secretary of State and the director to exercise their functions in a manner best calculated to mitigate the effects of the industry on flora, fauna and other features of the countryside? What that would achieve in simple terms is that the environment would be rated as of equal importance to other public interests that are protected by the Bill. It would be on a par with consumer interests, health and safety, protecting the public from danger and promoting efficiency and economy in the use of electricity. I do

1227
not believe that that is asking for much. Whether or not the case for an amendment to Clause 4 is accepted today, I believe that it will ultimately prove necessary.
The Minister has hinted that the Government's promised "green" Bill might, in effect, achieve what I am now urging. However, I believe that it would be wrong to wait for a "green" Bill to amend the Electricity Bill when we have a chance to get it right from the start. One thing that we can be sure of is that the problems of electricity and the environment cannot be swept under the carpet. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this amendment or bring forward an amendment of her own on Third Reading.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I add my support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has just spoken. Although when we come to Schedule 9 we shall be dealing in more detail with the impact on the environment of electricity generation, transmission and supply, this is now a matter of such overriding importance that it must surely be stated right at the beginning of the Bill where the duties of the Secretary of State and the director are specified. If that is not done, the Bill will suffer from a fundamental weakness in not recognising our present position.
There is increasing concern, voiced not least by the Prime Minister herself, about the impact of energy on the environment. The greenhouse effect is the subject of continued study. The Select Committee on Energy in another place is quickly bringing out a document on the subject so that it can inform the rest of our debates here. All this adds up to an overwhelming case that the reasonably modest wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, should be included in Clause 4.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I do not disgree with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Norrie or the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I would be the last to suggest that the environment is not of overwhelming importance; it needs to be mentioned in the Bill and, as my noble friend said, not lost in a schedule. I do not wish to prejudge any discussions that we may have subsequently on Schedule 9, but I am concerned that I am not sure what this amendment actually means:
"in the fulfilment of their functions, they take steps".
What steps? How many steps? At how much cost? And at what range? It does not tell us about those things. We all know about the greenhouse effect and the contribution of electricity generation to that, and we have heard other arguments about the value of renewables, nuclear power and other forms of generation. Therefore, it is obviously significant; it is of huge cost, of huge importance. Merely to say "steps" is a little vague. Also, what is being kept to a minimum? A minimum is not really a very good definition as to what the duties of the Secretary of State or the director should be.
If the amendment read much more simply, as both the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord
1228
Norrie put it, that the impact on the environment should be considered, or taken into account, it would have the same effect but would not—with all respect, be as meaningless.
I am puzzled, as I am sure are others, about what steps, what cost, and what is minimum. Therefore, although I am sure that the spirit behind it is correct and the aim is most laudable, I do not believe that it is the right amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has explained the reasons behind his amendment, and these have been echoed by contributions from others of your Lordships. As I have frequently said before, the Government have every sympathy with the principle of being environmentally friendly in what we do. We believe that the electricity supply industry like other industrial undertakings should show proper concern for the environmental consequences in what they do. On previous occasions I have quoted the 15 Acts of Parliament and 14 European Community directives which already apply to and regulate the electricity supply industry in environmental matters, and particularly in relation to pollution control, which I think we all agree is the main area where the electricity industry impinges upon the environment.
Nevertheless, I have also acknowledged that there are many of your Lordships who feel that the Bill gives an opportunity to do more. So we have tried to do more, and in our considerations and the consultations that we have had with various interested parties we have always emphasised that we want to avoid general statements of principle and concentrate on getting appropriate and effective provisions into the Bill.
We have come forward with an extensive package of amendments to Schedules 8 and 9 which we will be considering in more detail tomorrow but which, for example, say that licence holders and exempt generators and suppliers will have to have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, and do what they reasonably can to mitigate the effects of proposed developments in the light of that duty. A duty to mitigate the effects is much more precise and pointed than the wording it replaces, which was "shall take into account". We have also made it a statutory obligation on all licence holders, both existing and future, to produce a statement of environmental guidelines. I have already announced that the CEGB successor companies intended to do that on a voluntary basis, and that was widely welcomed; but we have gone substantially further by making this a statutory duty. I think many other concerns that have been expressed in previous debates on this subject are also covered by the package of amendments that the Government have brought forwrd.
I believe that we have made a great effort and have introduced real changes. We are now being asked to go further. This puts me in a difficult position. I say this more in sorow than in anger since, as I have said, we have tried very hard to meet many of your Lordships' concerns and to consult

1229
with bodies that include the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I had thought and hoped that we had a consensus of agreement on our package of amendments, but I realise from today's debate that that is not so. That is what puts me in a difficult position.
I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. In the first place, I am not sure that it is placed in the right part of the clause. My noble friend Lord Norrie made a point about this. Further, the wording could cause difficulties. I believe my noble friend Lord Trafford quoted some very telling examples, but I would add to them by saying that the word "environment" itself must be explained more fully in order to be technically effective as well as consistent with other parts of the Bill.
In view of the strong feelings expressed, I can only say that I will take the amendment back and undertake to return to the House at Third Reading with an amendment to Clause 4 that will embody as far as possible the spirit of this amendment and, indeed, the spirit of the debate, but will correct the technical difficulties. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be able to take that undertaking in the spirit in which it is offered, which is a very green spirit.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and "green" Baroness for her undertaking, and of course I shall shortly beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I cannot help reflecting on the Government's and the noble Baroness's view that they are being pushed, pushed and pushed again and they have always had to concede to pressure. I thought that the Government were in favour of all those matters, and to have to be pushed by the Opposition and by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, seems to be beating a rather curious and ragged retreat.
Having said that, as always, I am grateful at having pushed the Government a little further than they had hoped to go. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill
7.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
As this measure now completes its passage through your Lordships' House, I should like to thank those who have given support, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Glenarthur.
1230
The Bill came from another place with several defects. We have been able to straighten them out, which is a good example of the valuable revising role of the Upper House. The Bill returns to another place in good shape, and serves to draw attention to the useful and important work of the Interparliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, two parliamentary organisations working for international understanding, which is a worthwhile cause. I wish them and the Bill a swift and safe passage. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his words. I am glad that all sides of your Lordships' House have been able to support my noble friend's measure. I very much endorse what he has said, and I would add that it has been something of a model for short speeches.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps I may also endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said, and thank the noble Viscount for the skilful way in which he has piloted the Bill without any difficulty whatsoever throughout all its stages. We now say farewell to the Bill, and we wish the IPU and CPA great success over the next 100 years.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, allow me also to congratulate the noble Viscount on the skilful way in which he has proceeded with the Bill, and to support what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said. I hope that the organisations with which this Bill is concerned will have every success in the future.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.10 to 8.10 p.m.]

Electricity Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this amendment, which was discussed in Committee, is to ensure that the duty to promote competition in the generation and supply of electricity is given proper weight but does not have priority over the duty to protect the interests of consumers of electricity. It is also to ensure that the duty to promote competition in the generation and supply of electricity and the duty to secure the financial

1231
integrity of the companies cannot take priority or be used as an excuse for failing both to protect the public from dangers and to secure the establishment of a sensible machinery for promoting health and safety.
We are dealing here with the priority of the duties. As we said in Committee, it is understood that the priority of the Government is to promote competition, however that may be achieved. But it seems unreasonable, and certainly not in the best interests of consumers, that the subsidiary duties in the clause, if I may so describe them, are not given rights pari passu with the primary duties.
There has been a great deal of discussion and argument about what exactly the Bill as drafted means. I bring this matter back on Report because I was unhappy with the Government's answer in Committee. There is a serious danger that the duties which are outlined in the subsection with which we are dealing could in a number of circumstances be subservient to the primary duties set out earlier in the clause.
This subject will be familiar to noble Lords. I have to point out that we have taken further legal advice on the nature of subsection (3) as opposed to subsections (1) and (2). Our advice is that, whatever the Government may have said in Committee, in court proceedings the expression,
"Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above",
would certainly imply that the criteria in Clause 4(3) would be subordinate to the criteria in Clause 4(2). If our legal advice is right, the concept of the protection of the consumer is damaged. I should like to argue this out again because I was not satisfied with what the Government said in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as a matter of telepathy which exists between Celts, as everybody well knows, I put down exactly the same amendment as that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and therefore my name appears on the amendment. I would put the case more strongly than the noble Lord. He talked about questions of principle in relation to those matters set out in subsection (3). He mentioned their importance. I should like strongly to support his legal approach to this matter and the advice he has been given. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 4 start with the words:
"The Secretary of State and the Director shall each have a duty to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to him"
putting the Secretary of State and the director as one person—
"by this Part in the manner which he considers is best calculated".
One then looks at the matters in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1) and in paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (2) in regard to what are his general duties. When one comes to subsection (3) there is a qualification which uses more or less the same words as those used in subsections (1) and (2) but which then adds,
"Subject to subsections (1) and (2)".
Therefore the duties following in subsection (3) must be subordinate in some way to the general duties outlined in subsections (1) and (2).
1232
When one reads the duties in subsection (3) one finds that they are of equal importance. Why should they be subject to any dilution, if that is the correct word, by those introductory words? With the leave of the House, perhaps I may refer to an amendment to be introduced later on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. It relates to research activities. If that amendment is adopted and is inserted into Clause 3, it will be an important matter in relation to research and will justify further the removal of the introductory words,
"Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above".
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the structure of Clause 4, with some duties being made subject to others, is well precedented. The three primary duties in subsection (1) are all about protecting the interests of customers. There is an inherent logic in the fact that the subsequent provisions of the clause in effect cascade down. I can assure the House of the strength of the Government's commitment to the protection of consumers' interests, the promotion of the efficient use of electricity and the protection of public safety and the health and safety of those working in the industry. Perhaps I may quote an example of how we see the provisions working. Licence holders will be required to comply with regulations made under Clause 31 relating to safety. They will not be able to plead that the competition requirements in their licences excuse them from this obligation. Although in the terminology of the clause subsection (3) is subject to subsections (1) and (2), clearly they have to be taken together and are complementary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she said that the subsections are complementary. However, what happens if they are in conflict?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Clause 4 duty, which is to protect the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, will apply to economic regulation, as well as to all the other functions of the Secretary of State and the director under Part I of the Bill. It will ensure that the director and the Secretary of State will bear in mind the needs of public safety at all times and therefore there will not be a conflict.
As I said, it is a well-precedented structure and we believe that it is logical for the Secretary of State and the director to have a primary duty to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are satisfied. While the protection of consumer interests will be central to the director's duty, it has to be subject to securing that all reasonable demands for electricity are satisfied—otherwise there would be no consumers to protect.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness yet again. However, I shall not do so too often. The argument here is about Clause 4(1)(c), which lays on the Secretary of State and the director (each of them) a duty,
"subject to subsection (2) below, to promote competition in the generation and supply of electricity".

1233
I am advised legally that conflicts may well appear between that duty and the duty set out in subsection (3) which we are now discussing.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that there is no single answer to this point. In any one situation a balance has to be struck between the general duties and the subsidiary duties. Consumers will in fact benefit from increased competition which will exert a downward pressure on costs, which will be passed on to the final consumer through the price control mechanism in the licensing regime.
Therefore I believe that we can reassure the noble Lord that his concerns are satisfied and that he need be in no doubt about our determination in this legislation to protect consumers; to protect the efficient use of electricity; to protect the safety of the public and those working in the industry; and, indeed, as we shall come to shortly, to be involved in the research and development. I believe that the noble Lord's concerns are in fact unfounded.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if my concerns are unfounded, why does Section 4(2) of the Gas Act 1986 give competition and public safety equal emphasis? Why should we not in this legislation give consumer protection and competition equal emphasis?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, the two precedents on which this particular provision is founded are Section 4 of the Gas Act 1986 and Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. However, having said that, I must re-emphasise that we believe, as we have said many times—indeed, it was a basic premise of the White Paper—that competition is the best protection of consumers' interests.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we have had a short debate on this rather important subject and I do not wish to pursue the matter at this stage. However, I do not believe that there will be competition in the electricity supply industry, and I do not believe that there will be competition in the supply of electricity to domestic consumers. Therefore I do not believe that competition will in any sense be a protection of the consumer. In my view it should be for the Government to say that the protection of the consumer should rank pari passu with the other primary obligations of the Secretary of State and the director.
We have been over this ground before and no doubt we shall go over it again. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("(bb) to promote research into, and the development and use of, new techniques by or on behalf of persons authorised by a licence to generate, transmit or supply electricity;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that in moving Amendment No. 29 we can also speak to
1234
Amendments Nos. 34 and 174. I see that some noble Lords are not in agreement with the grouping so we should perhaps clarify the position now. Initially I understood that the grouping had been agreed without Amendment No. 34. I was then led to understand that it was to include that amendment. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, wishes to comment on the matter, but in any event I am quite happy to deal with the amendments separately if that is the preferred procedure.
At any rate, perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 29 at this point. In line with my undertaking given on 16th May in Committee, when I undertook to see whether a possible government amendment could be brought forward on Report which would acknowledge the concerns expressed on the suject, after careful consideration and indeed discussion with, among others, the movers of the amendment, we believe that we have been able to meet those concerns and make a concession in this area. It comprises two elements: a new clause and an addition to Clause 4.
The addition to Clause 4 concerns research and development into, and the use of, new techniques that pertain to the generation, transmission and supply of electricity. The effect of adding this provision to Clause 4(3) is that the Secretary of State and the director would have to take these matters into account when exercising their functions under Part I of this Bill. The most important such function concerns licensing. Thus, the addition would require the Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply to take into account applicants' R&D programmes, or their espousal of new techniques, when issuing licences. It would also provide the enabling powers if they wished to insert conditions on research and development in licences.
This addition recognises an amendment which was not moved by my noble friends Lord Stanley, Lord Monk Bretton and Lord Wise who wished to encourage,
"the generation of electricity by small scale generators and research into novel techniques of generating electricity".
The noble Lords referred to "novel techniques", although the amendment before us refers to "new techniques". I hope, therefore, that I shall have the support of my noble friends on this amendment.
The "new techniques" in question need not directly concern the generation, transmission or supply of electricity, but they should not be too distant from these activities. Thus the amendment would cover research and development into safety or environmental aspects of the generation, transmission or supply of electricity; but it would not cover R&D into totally unrelated matters, such as the design of motor car engines. I say this by way of clarification of the interpretation of the words in the amendment, since, if one takes no account of the context, they would, I recognise, appear to cover absolutely any new techniques for anything.
The essence of the new clause is to be found in subsection (1). As I explained in Committee, under the Science and Technology Act 196:5 the Secretary of State already has the power to support research and development, and it is that Act which provides the legal vires for the Department of Energy's existing

1235
programmes of expenditure in support of research and development. The new clause takes the form of a duty on the Secretary of State to use that power for the purpose of promoting such research into the development of new techniques relating to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity as appears to him to be necessary in the national interest.
To discharge that duty the Secretary of State will need to know what the industry is doing. Subsections (2) and (3) are therefore concerned with the provision of information by licensees to the Secretary of State. They enable the Secretary of State to serve a notice on a licence holder, or anyone authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity, to require that person to furnish such information about that person's business as may be specified in the notice. It may appear to noble Lords that this is an extraordinarily wide power that could, for example, be used to require information about absolutely any aspect of the business in question; but I can assure your Lordships that this is not so: as a matter of law, subsection (3) must be construed in the context of the clause as a whole, and that means by reference to the duty on the Secretary of State in subsection (1). In that context, therefore, the information-gathering power in subsections (2) and (3) can relate only to research and development that is relevant to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity.
Subsection (4) of the new clause then deals with the confidentiality of information so provided and enforcement. Taking confidentiality first, much of the information to which the information-gathering power would apply would be commercially sensitive, and it is therefore right that there should be provisions to ensure that it is properly safeguarded.
Turning now to enforcement, subsection (4) applies for the purposes of this clause subsections (7), (8) and (9) of Clause 97. They provide that any person who deliberately fails to comply with a notice requiring information about his R&D activities, who knowingly furnishes false information about those activities or who breaches the confidentiality requirements shall be guilty of an offence.
The new clause will ensure in an explicit and unambiguous way that after privatisation there will be a clearly defined long-stop responsibility for ensuring that R&D which is essential in the national interest is carried out. It will do that by providing statutory underpinning to the present informal arrangements by which National Power and Power Gen, the two main successor power generating companies, will continue to co-operate with ACORD so that the latter can advise the Secretary of State whether there are any research and development gaps which it is essential he should fill in the national interest. It would then require the Secretary of State to fill those gaps if it appeared to him that they should be filled in the national interest.
In Committee various concerns about research and development were expressed and I believe that the new clause meets those new concernes. However, by providing the Secretary of State with an associated information gathering power, by providing for the
1236
confidentiality of the information so provided, and by providing for enforcement arrangements, it does so in what in technical terms I hope is a somewhat more satisfactory manner. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may first ask the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whether we are discussing his Amendment No. 34 in this group.
Lord Ezra: I am glad that we can discuss it, because if the noble Lord were to move Amendment No. 34 we would probably go over the same ground again. I therefore speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 174, which is the new clause to which the Minister referred.
In general it seems to us that the Government have moved three-quarters of the way along the path that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, outlined when he moved his amendment in Committee. I am not sure that they have moved the whole way. I was reassured when the Minister said, towards the end of her introduction, that the Secretary of State had an obligation under the new clause: if there were any gaps in research and development that the privatised companies did not fill, he had an obligation to fill those gaps. If that is the case, the Government have moved, technically I am sure, in the right direction and probably philosophically in the direction that we would wish. I would have hoped that the Government might have laid upon the Secretary of State an overall duty—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may seek clarification. I thought that the noble Lord mentioned Amendment No. 174 when he spoke of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about Amendment No. 34.
Viscount Hanworth: It is mine actually.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry. It is the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. We are speaking to a grouping which consists of government Amendment No. 29, Amendment No. 34 tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth and government Amendment No. 174.
I believe that I have said all that I need to say for the moment on this amendment. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will wish to intervene. We have gone some way towards rationality by ensuring that the Government are the last resort to ensure that research and development in the industry is carried out in a proper manner. Until I hear clarification after the debate, I am not sure whether we have gone the whole way.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving the amendment. Of course I would not think of moving Amendment No. 34. However, I think, unkindly, one might ask, bearing in mind how important future research is and that under privatisation long-term research is not likely

1237
to be given the priority that it should be, why the Government did not take that point on board when drafting the Bill. One is left with the impression that the Bill, like so many other Bills that come before us, has not been properly considered, and it should have been.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It fills an important gap in the duties being imposed on the Secretary of State. Concerns have been expressed on all sides of the House about the need to ensure that there is an adequate long-term research programme to maintain security of supply of economic power in the years ahead. Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology took a keen interest in the subject and pressed strongly for the Government to look at it.
I thank my noble friend for the trouble that she has taken in bringing forward Amendments Nos. 29 and 174. If we take the two together, they meet the requirement that we had in mind and impose a duty upon the Secretary of State to ensure that an adequate programme of research is undertaken through one source or another. We must take the two together and I am glad we are doing so. I very much welcome this and commend the amendments to your Lordships.
There is one small point which puzzles me about the wording. It is not quite clear from the wording whether the last part of Amendment No. 29 relates to the first part, namely:
"to promote research into, and the development and use of, new techiques … to generate, transmit or supply electricity"
or whether it is to promote research on new techniques
"by or on behalf of persons authorised by a licence to generate, transmit or supply electricity".
It seems to me that it could be interpreted both ways.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 174 is quite clear when it refers to,
"such development of, new techniques relating to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity".
The matter is clarified in the subsequent amendment. Although there may be need for a little redrafting, I commend the amendment and I thank my noble friend the Minister for putting it forward.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I missed her opening sentence. However, I heard the rest of what she had to say. I have a few questions to add to those of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel unless they were dealt with in the opening remarks of the noble Baroness.
To use my noble friend's remark when referring to the Secretary of State essentially as being the researcher of last resort, do the Government agree that what they would most like is for the relevant research to be done by the industry? In other words, the reason for the fallback powers, we hope, is very much a fallback position. We want to see that the industry carries out the appropriate research, if possible. The noble Baroness used the word "promote" and I wish to ask whether "promote" means trying to persuade the industry to do the
1238
relevant research, only to step in subsequently. That is the main question I wish to ask.
My comment—and I do not say this in a mean spirit—is that I prefer the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because it is rather more explicit as to what the research might be. I agree that it is perhaps late in the Bill but the noble Baroness might wish to examine Amendment No. 34 at least with a view to asking herself and the Government asking themselves whether what appears under (a), (b) and (c) would not improve the Government's own amendment. I take it that those are largely the areas in which they would like the research to take place. However, I would find it more reassuring if I saw these areas on the face of the Bill. I do not think there can be anything between us on the areas of research in respect of efficiency in a general sense, new techniques, and with regard to the environment and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will make up their own minds on whether to press the amendment. I would find it more attractive if the Government could find a way of using their form of words. I do not wish to be churlish. I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, and others have said, that the Government have moved in the right direction as regards research.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I wish to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, has said. He has great experience in research matters and I also feel, as the Minister said, that the new clause covers most of 1 he concerns of the people involved in research.
I wish to ask the Minister for one point of clarification. That is on the scope of the words,
"and the development and use of, new techniques".
The Prime Minister has indicated more than once, particularly in the foreword to the Green Paper of 1985 entitled Innovation and Intellectual Property that in this country we are very good at research but there is often a lacuna in relation to marketing. We all know about it. The Prime Minister said that it is essential, when research is undertaken, to consider whether the research can be protected and how it can be exploited internationally for the creation of wealth for the benefit of UK industry.
With the leave of the House I wish to refer to two small amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 120 and 164. Amendment No. 120 suggests that the words in Amendment No. 29,
"the development and use of new techniques"
should include the development of intellectual property, for several purposes, mainly to protect the research but also to exploit it for the purposes of creating wealth for the country.
Amendment No. 164 is a definition of the word "property". Throughout the Bill it is not clear what is meant by "property". The matter was raised previously and the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, kindly wrote to me. Amendment No. 164 suggests that the word "property" in the definition clause should include "intellectual property". This

1239
is a practical matter. It is well known that we are very successful in a great deal of research in this country. But it is not marketed properly. The main way in which to market it is through the ability to understand what is meant by "intellectual property" and to use, as subtly as one can, the rights given to a person in intellectual property; that is to say, a person's rights under patents, trade marks, know-how, copyright, and designs. I wonder whether even at this late hour the Minister is able to consider assuring the House that,
"the development and use of, new techniques",
will include the use and development of intellectual property rights.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps first of all I may deal with Amendment No. 34 and, in doing so, respond to some of the questions raised in the course of the debate. I wish to say how delighted I am that so many of your Lordships have felt able to give a welcome to this effort on the Government's part to meet the concerns expressed at the Committee stage.
We neither wish nor intend to derogate from the clear responsibilty for security of supply which the Bill places on the supply companies. We do not wish to give the privatised electricity companies an undesirable signal that they need not concern themselves with research in these areas.
The government amendments have been carefully drafted so as not to compromise either of these points. As I explained previously and as was accepted earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the essence of the Government's amendment would be to place on the Secretary of State a long-stop responsibility for ensuring that the research and development that is essential in the national interest is carried out, as the noble Viscount accepted.
By contrast, the effect of Amendment No. 34 is that it would impose the main responsibility on the Secretary of State and we wish to ensure that the industry carries out its part in all this. To that extent, as regards the request by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we should examine the words of Amendment No. 34 for use in the government amendment, we believe it is not necessary because subsection (1) of the new clause is already widely drafted. As I explained, it refers to the new techniques relating to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity. It does not, in other words, concern only research on these matters. Therefore, the new techniques need not directly concern the generation, transmission or supply of electricity. However, they should not be too distant from these activities. In the context of the question, what does the word "promote" mean, I should say that it means both to encourage other people to carry out research, and/or to commission research.
I shall now turn to the somewhat unexpected consideration of Amendments Nos. 129 and 164. I understand that it is agreeable to the House to discuss these amendments at this stage. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that intellectual property rights are essentially private matters, whereas the new duty on the Secretary of State in relation to research and development is essentially
1240
related to the national interest. To extend the duty in the new clause, or indeed the new research and development duty on the Secretary of State and the director in Clause 4 in the way envisaged by the noble Lord's amendments, would be to widen them beyond recognition. It would confuse the distinction between purely commercial matters and the Secretary of State's entirely proper longstop responsibilities in the national interest, in precisely the way the Government have been so anxious to avoid. I hope the noble Lord will understand when I say we feel that we cannot accept the amendments to which he referred. I hope I have covered all the queries that were raised.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I am being extremely stupid, but I cannot see that simply adding the words "includes intellectual property rights" changes the situation in any way. That merely slightly expands and explains what is meant. How does it make such a fundamental change? I am not at all clear on that matter. Will the noble Baroness clarify it a little more? Perhaps I am at fault, but I do not understand what was said.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made it clear that the duties of the Secretary of State in this matter are longstop duties in the national interest. I hoped also that I had made it clear that intellectual property rights are essentially private matters, and therefore do not come into that category.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, is the noble Baroness suggesting that the marketing of intellectual property rights is not in the national interest?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords. However, I should say that they are internal matters and, in that sense, private matters. However, if I may consider this particular matter again, I shall write to the noble Lord and perhaps clarify anything that seems to be outstanding.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, we have talked about Amendment No. 34. Amendment No. 29, which we are in fact discussing, goes a long way to meeting the point that research and development is vital. However, it does not spell out at all the direction in which this should go. As it stands, the provision is a pious hope. I am afraid I have to say that, having considered Amendment No. 34, I am not satisfied with the reasons given for this research. I think that under paragraph (a) in the proposed new clause we should talk about generating electricity as cheaply as possible. Paragraphs (b) and (c) could also usefully be reworded.
However, the Government's amendment is simply nothing more than a pious hope. I hope that the Government will consider saying exactly what they mean so that we get this research, because otherwise in a private enterprise research will be carried out on a short-term basis. We really ought to spell out how we want this research to be carried out.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, looking at this proposal by the Government, it seems to me that the points raised under Amendment No. 34—
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I must remind him that as we are on Report one can speak only once.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("(bb) to set standards of performance and to ensure that customers are compensated for failure to meet those standards").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, earlier when I was much aggrieved that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and not mine, I said to myself that a moment would come when I moved an amendment which the noble Lord would be only too delighted to accept in order to secure a degree of evenhandedness in those moving amendments. It seems to me, particularly having considered Amendment No. 29, that Amendment No. 30 should commend itself to noble Lords along the same lines. Amendment No. 30 also derives from the words at the beginning of the clause which state that:
"The Secretary of State and the Director shall each have a duty".
We have just discussed that they should each have the duty to promote research and other matters. With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I personally did not read that remotely as a pious hope. I read it as a very definite duty. That is why I felt able to support it. However, given that the Government have decided, in our view quite rightly, to articulate this aspect of the behaviour of the director and the Secretary of State, it seems to me that it is just as compelling to articulate this further aspect of the behaviour of the director and the Secretary of State.
My whole reading of the Bill is that the Secretary of State and the director have an implicit duty to set standards of performance along these lines. I and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel feel that this matter is a very good example of where making the duty explicit can only help to achieve the ends we all require, which is that this industry should achieve appropriate standards of performance, but that the consumer should be compensated if it fails. Therefore, I commend this particular amendment most strongly to your Lordships. I believe it will very much help in reassuring people and in making the Bill rather more attractive to those who are currently considering it. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the industry, as noble Lords may already know, has already agreed to standards of service and penalty payments for domestic premises. However, I think the industry feels that commercial customers should be able to pursue their own remedies without such assistance where the industry has been negligent. On the whole, this amendment is one that I cannot support.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, Clause 41 of the Bill already provides for a new system of guaranteed standards whereby domestic customers will have the right to be compensated if their local electricity supply company does not meet certain standards of performance laid down by the director.
The director will put this scheme in place by making regulations, with the consent of the Secretary of State, prescribing the standards of performance which he believes the public electricity suppliers should meet in the electricity supply services which they provide to their domestic customers.
The regulations will also set the level of compensation which customers will receive if the companies fail to meet those standards. They may also cover how public electricity suppliers are to inform customers of their rights and the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to penalise a supplier for events beyond his control; for example, freak weather conditions.
The noble Lord's amendment attempts to make the Secretary of State and the director equally responsible for setting standards of performance. The amendment as drafted would not work in so far as it applies to the Secretary of State, since Clause 41 gives powers to the director, not the Secretary of State, to make the regulations. That apart, I believe that this job should be one for the director and for him alone. He will be ideally placed to make regulations concerning the standards of performance. He will be in a position, through the Office of Electricity Regulation and the advice of the consumers' committees, to assess the particular circumstances of the various supply companies and take account of regional variations if necessary. Of course, as the Bill makes clear, the director must in any case seek the approval of the Secretary of State before making his regulations.
Under our proposals Clause 42 will also enable the director to determine standards of overall performance which is his opinion should be achieved by public electricity suppliers. Those standards will in effect be statutory performance indicators of how well the supply companies are living up to their responsibilities in dealing with the consumers.
The overall standards in Clause 42 will cover those aspects of performance where awards of compensation to individual consumers provided for in Clause 41 would not be appropriate or practical. Such overall standards might include, for example, the expectation that the supply companies would deal with 100 per cent. of certain types of written inquiry within a set number of days. It will be for the director, after consultation with suppliers and consumer representatives, to determine what the standards should be and the targets at which the companies should be aiming. He will also have a duty under Clause 43 to collect and publish information on their performance against the standards.
The provisions in Clause 42 will provide a strong incentive, additional to the companies' natural desire to avoid paying compensation for breaches of individual standards, for the supply companies to

1243
keep up their overall standards. It would clearly be very damaging for a supply company's repeated poor performance continually to be made public in this way.
I should also remind your Lordships that the companies are already under an obligation to do their best to achieve the standards set. Condition 17 of the public electricity supply licence will require the companies to conduct their business in the manner they consider to be best calculated to achieve the standards. If they fail to comply with that condition, the whole panoply of enforcement procedures available to the director will apply. For example, under Clause 27 he can order them to comply. In extreme cases, under Clause 24 the director could refer the company to the MMC in order to amend the licence in an appropriate manner.
Therefore, the Bill already provides a framework for compensation to be paid where standards of performance have not been met. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. I am not a little disappointed at his reply. I am perfectly well aware of what appears in other parts of the Bill. My intention was to follow in the spirit of what I thought we were doing in respect of this part of the Bill in relation to the general duties of the Secretary of State and the director. Later in the Bill that is spelt out in more detail. It was my judgment, and still is, that, since we were adding the duty to promote research, to specify the general duty with regard to standards of performance at this point would make matters clearer and more reassuring. This section of the Bill seemed a suitable place to put it.
However, having done my best to improve the Bill, if the noble Earl refuses to be helped there is not much that I can do about it. Having tried to make my contribution, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) to promote activities connected with the supply to any premises of heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from and air and water heated by such heat.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 could, if your Lordships agree, conveniently be taken in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. All the amendments refer to combined heat and power. That may not emerge from the rather convoluted wording of the amendment, but I am told that that is the way it has to be represented in the Bill.
Noble Lords may recall that I moved an amendment on combined heat and power at Committee stage and that, because of the massive contribution of combined heat and power to the increased efficiency of power stations and to benefiting the environment, I pressed very hard for this form of energy to come within the non-fossil fuel arrangements. However, in view of the lack of
1244
support from the noble Baroness, I withdrew the amendment but said that I would come back to the matter.
In the meantime my noble friend Lord Hanworth and I have had correspondence with the noble Baroness. We asked that combined heat and power should at least be mentioned in the Bill, which hitherto it has not been. As a result she very kindly put forward Amendment No. 118. However, that amendment, as your Lordships will see, simply lays down that the director shall record development in this connection and do no more. Quite honestly, I feel that that does not go far enough.
I should like to remind your Lordships that under the Energy Act 1983 very strong support was given to combined heat and power schemes. Section 19 of that Act states:
"It shall be the duty of every Electricity Board to adopt and support schemes—

(a) For the combined production of heat and electricity, and

(b) For the use of heat produced in combination with electricity, or incidentally from its generation, for the heating of buildings or for other useful purposes".

That was a very precise and specific commitment which was placed on the electricity boards, which will soon become the distribution companies.
So I believe that in this legislation there should at the very least be rather more than an obligation on the part of the director to record developments in that field. It is for that reason that, in addition to welcoming the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, I should like to propose Amendment No. 31, whose aim is to promote activities connected with the supply of premises by combined heat and power. We have accepted an amendment to promote research. There are other objectives that must be promoted. This proposal is on all fours with that intention. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall intervene briefly in this matter. It seems to me that, on more than one occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has made an overwhelming case for taking much more seriously than we have done the general activity called combined heat and power. Certainly, as a result of listening to the noble Lord and doing a certain amount of reading, I—who started on the Bill both rather ignorant about CHP and thinking that it was something rather far out—am now convinced that this is one of the matter of the greatest importance for the electricity industry. It does not solve all our problems, but, clearly, in so far as we are strongly committed to efficiency and, equally, are all trying to take due account of environmental problems and other such matters, this is at least something that needs promotion. I suppose the relevant word is "promotion".
Again, when we consider a major Act of Parliament, not to take the chance of making quite explicit the promotion of matters of this sort under the general duties of the Secretary of State and the director—that applies notably to the director, but it is not a trivial matter for the Secretary of State either—would be to miss a great opportunity. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on this matter.

1245
I am in some slight difficulty because we seem to have developed a new habit of discussing amendments that are not even remotely likely to be considered today, so I am not yet entirely ready to say what I shall have to say on the amendment of the noble Baroness. I hope that she will forgive me for that. We shall deal with that amendment later. In the meantime, I wish to support Amendment No.31.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness has moved in some direction to help on this point, but I still cannot understand why it cannot be spelt out much more clearly. We have had the arguments before and they are centred around energy efficiency and the need to help or promote CHP schemes. I still cannot understand why the Government simply do not go all out in the Bill to say so.
The arguments that we have heard are almost irrelevant and of no weight whatsoever. Perhaps the noble Baroness will try once more to convince us of the reasons why the Government cannot support the proposal in the way they should. We should not forget that they have, I believe, given 1.5 million for large city schemes.
We shall now land up with much smaller power stations. If they use gas turbines, it is so easy to use the waste heat from them, but there is the problem of digging up the city streets and providing mains and so on. The matter therefore needs some help from the director in order to promote it—"promote" is the word that I should like to use—but, for some extraordinary reason, the Government hold back
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that heat and steam co-generated with electricity is an important potential source of energy which should be utilised as far as possible. I should point out that this Government have done more than any other to promote energy efficiency in all its forms. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has reminded us, the Department of Energy has funded an extensive programme in the field of combined heat and power to seek to establish the potential for CHP both on a city-wide and a local basis. As we have been reminded, too, we are, in bringing forward Amendments Nos. 116 and 118 to Clause 48 of the Bill, specifically drawing attention to combined heat and power.
I should like to point out with regard to Amendment No. 31 that our privatisation proposals are specifically designed to encourage competition in generation and to ensure that all economic sources of electricity supply will have fair access to the market. So all generators, including CHP operators, will have fair and equal access to the transmission and distribution systems after privatisation. The new transmission company will have every incentive to promote competition in generation. We shall also ensure through licence conditions that terms for the use of the grid will be transparent, thereby allowing
1246
first-time generators to compete on art equal footing with the two major generators being created from the CEGB.
Furthermore, after privatisation the supply companies will be under an obligation to purchase their electricity supplies from the most economic source. This will be overseen by the Director General of Electricity Supply, who will also have powers to investigate anti-competitive practices, such as predatory pricing, and these will also be subject to general competition law.
The whole framework that is being created is therefore designed to encourage new competitive sources of electricity to enter the market. With the savings represented by the more efficient use of fuel, we believe that CHP operators—and I know that this is the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—should be well placed to take advantage of these new opportunities.
We have in addition looked carefully at the legislative framework within which CHP plant has to operate. Here, too, we have been anxious to dispose of any administrative obstacles which may be in the way of CHP developments. In particular, CHP operators have complained—indeed with some justification in the past—that they are at a disadvantage compared with the electricity boards over the laying of heat mains, for example. The boards, as public utilities, have the powers to break streets in order to lay electricity cables and, where necessary, heat mains for the distribution of hot water. Up to now these powers have not been available to independent CHP operators. However, under Clause 11(3) of the Bill, CHP operators may now have the same powers to break streets as are currently being enjoyed by the utilities.
Further, the purpose of our proposals in Amendments Nos. 116 and 118, to which I am happy to refer although, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I was taken a little by surprise, is to ensure that, in carrying out his functions to keep under review the carrying on both in Great Britain and elsewhere of activities connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, the director also keeps under review in particular activities connected with the supply to any premises of heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from air and water heated by such heat; or, in plainer English perhaps, combined heat and power. I hope that, when we come to them, the House will be able to welcome those amendments, which, as the noble Viscount has indicated, are a step in the right direction.
Taken together, I believe that our proposals go to considerable lengths, both in terms of promoting competition and of overcoming legislative obstacles, to improve the position and ensure that CHP operators have every opportunity to bring forward economic schemes. However, as I said at a previous stage when discussing this subject, we do not believe that it is the role of government to subsidise uneconomic schemes. If there is a place for combined heat and power schemes we feel that they should and will be capable of paying their own way. The test of any successful CHP scheme must therefore be its ability to attract private sector finance. To do

1247
that, a scheme must be able to compete effectively with other forms of electricity generation, space heating and heating for industrial processes.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, specifically asked why the "adopt and support" provisions of the Energy Act 1983 were not being continued. I must point out that the duty placed on electricity boards by Section 19 of the Energy Act 1983 was framed in very different circumstances from those which will apply in the privatised industry. The 1983 Act sought to create new market opportunities within an industry which was still totally dominated by the CEGB and its close relationship with the area boards. Given the absence of effective competition and the monopoly position enjoyed by the CEGB, it was felt necessary to place the boards under a direct duty to consider proposals for this important and energy efficient alternative source of generation. It was also felt necessary, again to counter-balance the dominance of the CEGB, to require boards to adopt and to support all such viable schemes. As I have already tried to explain, our privatisation proposals are designed to overcome the obstacles to CHP development at source.
The generating industry is being restructured to promote real competition and the area boards' successors will be under an obligation to purchase the most economic supply of electricity and not just to do business with their old favourites. The dominance of the CEGB will go and there will be strong commercial incentives on area boards' successors to purchase their power competitively.
With these radical changes to the structure of the industry, we believe that it would be inappropriate to continue a duty which was conceived as a spur to a monolithic monopoly in order to encourage competition. Circumstances have changed for the better and it would be wrong to look to remedies that have outlived their usefulness.
In the light of my explanations, I trust that the movers of the amendment will feel able to take solace from the government amendments which are to come and will withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her three questions. First, when she considers financial viability, will she consider it over the life of any CHP project? Secondly, will she make comparisons with the success that has occurred overseas? Thirdly, will she give some bias towards energy efficiency, which is so important in our future, and not just to present economic financial viability?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that to some extent I have already responded to those concerns. At the outset of my remarks on this amendment I said that we believed this Government have done more for energy efficiency than any other. We have broken new ground in the Bill on energy efficiency in imposing duties on the Secretary of State and the director to take energy efficiency into account. We therefore expect energy efficiency to take its rightful place in all the considerations that have to concern us.
1248
On financial viability, we believe that by providing equal footing, by removing the obstacles, and because we believe—as indeed do the noble Viscount, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others—that CHP systems are intrinsically more efficient and therefore should be more cost efficient, such a system will prove itself, given the removal of the obstacles to which I have referred. Obviously, in looking at experience overseas we take these factors into account, and the different factors that apply in some of the overseas areas where CHP systems have been more developed.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I cannot hide my disappointment at that response, however kindly the words were uttered. I am very sorry that the Government are not giving CHP a greater push and greater support. The word "promote" means simply to stimulate and to encourage. I find it very surprising that the Government are not even prepared to say that they wish to stimulate and encourage a process which will almost double the effective efficiency of power stations, where it can be appropriately introduced, and which will enormously add to the environmental benefits.
What can be more environmentally attractive from the point of view of energy than transmitting hot water in pipes underground? What conceivable harmful environmental effect could that have? On the contrary, it has very beneficial environmental effects, because the more this otherwise wasted heat is conveyed underground in pipes, the less generation there will have to be in newly-built power stations which will have an adverse impact on the atmosphere.
In the light of these circumstances, I find it most extraordinary that the Government are not even prepared to say that the director should encourage and stimulate the development. As I made clear in the remarks that I uttered at Committee stage, the reason why there has not been more development of CHP in this country is that there is considerable initial capital expenditure. It takes a number of years before the benefits can be realised. The reason that it has been developed more on the Continent is that the process has received government support there. They are now reaping the benefit because the money has been paid back and the rest is pure benefit. Sooner or later we shall have to come to terms with the whole environmental question associated with energy.
Here we have at our disposal a means of going a long way towards solving the environmental question associated with energy. I would have been tempted to have asked the opinion of the House, except that this is a late hour, and so I shall ask the House for leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall come back to it at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 39, at end insert—
("(3A) In performing his duty under subsection (3)(a)(i) above, the Secretary of State or the Director shall take into account in particular the protection of the interests of consumers of electricity in rural areas.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Prohibition on unlicensed supply etc.]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 5, after ("electricity") insert ("in Great Britain").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 36. The purpose of the amendment again is to try to get some clarification of precisely what the section means. What overall this part of the Bill is about is licensing and making it clear that someone cannot generate, transmit or supply without a licence unless that person is given an exemption. An exemption is the alternative. Someone cannot just—as at least one noble Baroness was under the impression could be done—announce that he is going to construct a generating station to compete with existing people. One can do nothing without a licence, as I read the Bill, unless one has an exemption, which is another kind of permission.
I remind noble Lords that this is not competition in any sense in which those of us who have spent our lives studying the market mechanism would use the term. "Competition" means that I decide to enter this line of business and I simply do so and compete. This is not competition.
The key matter which the amendment seeks to clarify—and I hope that we can sort it out fairly quickly—is in what sense there is a prohibition. I should like a final reassurance that the transmission or supply of electricity generated in another country—obviously we have in mind the EC—will not require a licence. How could it? It is none of our business to issue licences to people producing electricity in, say, France. Also, that there will be no question of any guilt of an offence, not merely in respect of the generator but also the transmitter or supplier. That is the main purpose of the amendment.
I fully accept the fact that I have no expertise in drafting or in the law. I can only say that my reading of the words—and noble Lords may think that it is foolhardy of me to rely merely on the words—appears to suggest that a French power station without a British licence would in some peculiar sense be guilty of an offence. I can see nothing in the words that tells me that that is not so.
I ask only for an explanation from those who are much more expert than I on legal matters as to whether the clause is satisfactory, in the sense that it does the job that the Government want it to do. To say the least, it would not be attractive if the Government were to discover that their drafting of a clause put them in certain difficulties, especially bearing in mind that, curiously enough, electricity has become internationally traded.
That is the purpose of the amendment. I am sorry to raise a matter of such technicality at this late hour, but I do not believe that it is entirely trivial.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right to raise these issues because we form part of the European Community. We are moving into the single market and preparing for 1992. Electricity is being traded internationally more and more. England and Wales, which are the subject of the Bill, are linked with Scotland on the one hand and with France on the other. Through that French link we could be connected with electricity produced anywhere else on the Continent. I believe that the issue needs to be clarified.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra. I believe that one of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is to ensure that Clause 5 of the Bill does not in some way prevent the importation of electricity from, say, France or any other country. I assure your Lordships that in no way does the clause prevent the importation of electricity. After Committee we wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the matter.
It is our intention that those persons generating, transmitting or supplying electricity in Great Britain should be required to hold a licence or exemption. We cannot legislate for or regulate activities which are taking place in other countries and that is not our intention.
Overseas generators will not need to hold a generation licence or exemption. Those supplying electricity to premises in Great Britain who may purchase electricity from overseas generators will need to hold a supply licence or exemption. Those transmitting electricity in Great Britain will need a licence from wherever the electricity that they are transmitting originated.
I should also say to your Lordships that the Government plan to make use of the power conferred by Clause 6 to exempt certain classes or groups of operator from the requirement to hold a licence. Our present plans are to exempt those who generate little, generate for on-site consumption or export less than 50 megawatts to the public supply system. We shall be formally consulting the operators concerned on those criteria and will listen carefully to their views before drawing up the necessary order.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer and the uncovenanted extra answer about exemptions. I found that particularly interesting and helpful. Of course, I wanted the noble Earl to be on record as saying what he has just said. I am indebted to him for saying what he thinks the clause means. I am still rather puzzled that Clause 5(1)(a) does not get into difficulties in terms of overseas purchase but I must accept that, if that is his advice which he has now given me, then that is so. It does not read like that to me but I am glad that he had made this statement. I am particularly grateful for his additional, remarks on how the Government propose to use the exemptions, which had puzzled me. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Licences authorising supply etc.]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 6, line 3, leave out first ("the") and insert ("any").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 175. These amendments clarify the procedures for second tier supply licensing. The Bill requires the granting of a second tier supply licence to be notified to the public electricity supplier in whose authorised area the premises to be supplied may be located. The first amendment recognises that the premises to be supplied may not all fall into the area of a single PES.
The amendment thus provides for any PES affected by such a licence to be notified of the granting of that licence. This is designed to help each public electricity supplier concerned to judge the degree to which he will face competition from second tier suppliers.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 175, provides for the premises which are to be supplied under a second tier licence to be described in any suitable way. It is designed to ensure that the licensing procedures may operate in a practical and sensible way.
Clause 7(2) at present allows a person to seek, and be granted, a licence to supply such premises or descriptions of premises as are specified in the licence. This would allow an applicant to seek a licence to supply certain types of premises, whether within a specified area or more generally. The licence might, for example, refer to premises used for residential or industrial purposes; or those at which a given level of maximum electrical demand is to be supplied.
Equally, it might make sense for a licence to be couched in terms of supply to specific consumers or descriptions of consumer; for example, the premises owned or occupied by, say, a bank or banks with multiple retail outlets. In those circumstances, it would clearly be more practical and less administratively cumbersome to define the licence in terms of the consumer or consumer groups concerned. The amendment makes it clear that the types of description I have given as examples would be in accordance with the requirements of the Bill for licensing purposes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Conditions of licences: general]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 6, line 49, leave out from ("specified") to ("the") in line 2 on page 7 and insert—
("(c) to refer for determination by the Director such questions arising under the licence as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified; and
(d) to refer for approval by the Director such things falling to be done under the licence, and such contracts or agreements made before the grant of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment remodels subsection (3) of Clause 8 and expands the scope of conditions which the Secretary of State or the director may include in electricity licences
1252
granted under the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State or the DGES can specify in a licence condition certain contracts or agreements as requiring DGES approval, whether entered into before or after the licence is granted.
Paragraph (c), as amended, would allow licence conditions to require the licence holder to refer for determination by the director questions as specified in the licence. Paragaph (d) would allow things falling to be done under the licence, and such contracts or agreements as are specified in the licence and made before the licence is granted, to be referred for approval by the director. This latter expansion of the provisions will cater for pre-existing contracts. What we have in mind is, for example, the restructuring contracts which the successor companies in Scotland will inherit.
Such contracts will play a central role in the operation of the privatised industry in Scotland and it is considered essential that they should be referred to the DGES for his approval. It is equally important to ensure that agreements between the companies to amend these contracts or to enter into completely new contracts are also covered. The requirement to obtain the approval of the director before entering into such agreements or future contracts is already covered by paragraph (b) of subsection (3), the text of which remains as it is in the Bill. In assessing any contracts or agreements under the licence the DGES will of course take into account his duties under the Bill.
This is a sensible amendment which reflects the Government's concern to ensure that the director has a role in relation to such contracts entered into between the two Scottish utilities. This part of the Bill of course applies to Great Britain. It is possible that this provision may be required in the future in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is an appropriate moment to raise this matter with my noble friend. At an earlier stage of our proceedings my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked about the headquarters of the North Board. Has my noble friend anything to report in that connection?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am happy to respond to my noble friend. It may be helpful if in this context I make a short statement which fulfils the undertaking I gave on 19th June that I would have discussions with the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board about the location of the board's headquarters and that I would return to the matter on Report.
I have had a useful meeting with the chairman of the board, who has followed the debate in the House with interest. The subject is not a new one. As recently as 1985 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission addressed the issue in its report on the efficiency and costs of the hydro board. The report recorded that the MMC had not observed any serious inefficiencies arising from the separation of activities in different locations, particularly in Edinburgh and

1253
Aberdeen. It also recorded that no problems had been identified which would justify the substantial cost and other penalties of moving the head office. Nevertheless, it suggested that the board should undertake periodic reviews to ensure that the structure remained appropriate in changing conditions
It is against that background that my discussions with Mr. Joughin, the chairman, have taken place. The board considers that it would be appropriate for the new north company's flotation prospectus to make reference to the headquarters. It has agreed to record in the prospectus the fact that the company's staff is split evenly between the headquarters building in Edinburgh and other locations within its licence area. It has also agreed that the prospectus will record that the company will keep the location of its headquarters building under review with the intention of maximising benefits to shareholders and customers. These arrangements will ensure that the issue is not lost sight of as the company moves into the private sector. The board will also ensure that responsibility rests properly with the company for any decisions affecting its headquarters.
I regard this as an entirely satisfactory outcome to my discussions and to the debate on this matter on 19th June. I hope that my noble friend will understand the situation and be able to convey that message to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy who is unable to be here.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Other powers etc. of licence holders]:
9.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 84, line 32, at beginning insert ("any relevant pipe (within the meaning of Schedule 19 to the Water Act 1989) under the control of the National Rivers Authority, a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker or, in Scotland,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47 to 51. This group of six amendments is concerned simply with ensuring that there is conformity between this Bill and others which are currently before Parliament. They all relate to the powers given by paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 4 for electricity licence holders to alter the position of other undertakers' works where this is necessary in order for them to carry out the functions assigned to them under their licences.
The amendments have two purposes. The first is to bring the terms used for a water pipe and for those authorised to have control of such a pipe into conformity with the equivalent terms as defined in the Water Bill, which has already been considered by your Lordships. The second is to incorporate within the works which can be altered and within the list of undertakers who have reciprocal rights in respect of electricity licence holders' works, system apparatus of the operator of a driver information
1254
system and such operators. These terms are defined in the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill which has also been considered earlier by your Lordships.
The powers to alter works is essential to enable licence holders to provide a supply. These amendments are an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 51:
Page 84, line 33, leave out ("or").
Page 84, line 36, at end insert ("; or
(e) any system apparatus (within the meaning of Part II of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989) of an operator of a driver information system who is licensed under Part II of that Act.").
Page 85, line 52, at beginning insert ("the National Rivers Authority, any water undertaker or any sewerage undertaker or, in Scotland,").
Page 85, line 52, leave out ("and").
Page 86, line I, at end insert ("; and
(d) any operator of a driver information system who is licensed under Part II of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 86, line 12, at end insert—
("Protection from interference
4A.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a licence holder who installs or alters, or changes the mode of operation of, any electric line or electrical plant shall take all reasonable precautions for securing that the operation of that line or plant does not interfere with the operation of any telecommunication apparatus which—

(a) is under the control of a person to whom the telecommunications code applies; and

(b) is not unusually sensitive to interference with its operation.

(2) In the case of any telecommunication apparatus which is subsequently installed or altered or whose mode of operation is subsequently changed, the duty imposed by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply in relation to—

(a) any momentary interference with its operation; or

(b) where it is installed in unreasonably close proximity to the electric line or electrical plant, any other interference with its operation.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall be read as also applying in the converse case of a person to whom the telecommunications code applies who installs or alters, or changes the mode of operation of, any telecommunication apparatus, and in such a case shall have effect as if

(a) any reference to the licence holder were a reference to that person;

(b) any reference to an electric line or electrical plant were a reference to such apparatus; and

(c) any reference to such apparatus under the control of a person to whom that code applies were a reference to such a line or such plant under the control of a licence holder.

(4) Any difference arising under this paragraph between a licence holder and a person to whom the telecommunications code applies shall be referred to arbitration by an arbitrator or, in Scotland, arbiter appointed, in default of agreement between the parties, by the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
(5) In this paragraph "momentary interference" means any interference of momentary duration which is not a regular occurrence (whether caused by physical contact or otherwise).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a detailed technical amendment dealing with the necessary provisions to govern the approach of the telecommunications and electricity industries to interference between their respective operations. Your Lordships will appreciate that the use by both industries of wires carrying electricity as an intrinsic part of their operations, albeit on vastly different scales in terms of signal voltage and power, gives rise to a particular risk of interaction and interference between the two networks.
The need for measures to prevent interference was recognised in legislation as long ago as 1882. Over the years the relevant statutory provisions have been further reinforced through joint agreements between the two industries. In preparing the present amendment the Government entered into long and detailed consultation with both the telecommunications and electricity industries. The provisions that it contains reflect that consultation and essentially continue the approach which had been developed by the industries under the existing legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Modification by agreement]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Modification references to Monopolies Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Modification following report]:
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Duty to supply on request]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Power to recover charges]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 16, line 7, leave out ("undue").
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("particularly consumers in rural areas").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 en bloc. They were spoken to and decided on in a Division earlier today.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Special agreements with respect to supply]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 18, line 16, leave out from ("who") to end of line 17 and insert ("requires a supply of electricity in pursuance of section 18(1) above and is supplied by the public electricity supplier otherwise than on the terms specified in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the discussion of this clause in Committee the noble Lord, Lord
1256
Williams of Elvel, proposed an amendment to the definition that it contains of "tariff customer". I said at that time that we believed that an amendment along the lines proposed could help to clarify the position.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he speaking to Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 66, 67, 70 and 72?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: No, I am speaking only to Amendment No. 62, which is not grouped on my list with that group of amendments, to which we shall come later.
I said at that time that we believed that an amendment along the lines proposed could help to clarify the position and I undertook to consider the point further. The amendment we are now considering achieves that clarification by specifying that, for the purposes of the Bill, a tariff customer is one who requires a supply under Clause 18(1) otherwise than on the terms specified in Clause 24(1). In other words, we are fulfilling the noble Lord's desire. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, I apologise for intervening. I think I had an earlier version of the groupings.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The public electricity supply code]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 93, line 25, leave out ("supplying and fixing") and insert ("provision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 66, 67, 70 and 72. This group of amendments serves two purposes. It makes one substantive change to the provisions of the Bill, and also makes some changes to the drafting to ensure that there is consistency within the Bill on the terms used to describe the same point.
I shall start, if I may, with the point of substance. During discussion of Schedule 6 in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, moved an amendment to paragraph 1(5) of the schedule. This would have had the effect of extending the period which is allowed under the Bill for the payment of charges due in respect of a supply to 28 days from the presentation of a demand for payment by the public electricity supplier. He argued that the period prescribed in the Bill was inconsistent with that allowed to gas consumers and was too short.
I explained at the time that what was provided for was a minimum period for the payment of charges. In setting such a period it is right and proper that account be taken of the billing practices within the industry—which are different from those in the gas industry—and the need to ensure that ordinary customers who pay their bills on time are protected from cost penalties as a result of bad debts. I did, however, agree to look at the points made in debate and consider the matter further.
In that earlier debate the clear feeling was expressed that the proposed minimum period could cause particular difficulties for domestic consumers if it were to be rigidly enforced. I am pleased to say that the amendments we are now considering would extend the time allowed to domestic customers to 20 working days. That is, of course, at least the equivalent of the four calendar weeks allowed by the Gas Act 1986. The 15 working day period will be retained for other customers. This approach meets the concerns which had been expressed over the position of the domestic consumer while retaining the necessary degree of protection against large debts accumulating for other customers with large demands who would generally be billed more frequently. It will, I am sure, be welcomed by your Lordships.
As I said earlier these amendments also make some changes to the drafting of paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to ensure there is consistency of terminology within the Bill. To that end the references to fixing and installing of electric lines, electricity meters and electrical plant are changed to references to provision of such items in line with the equivalent references in Clauses 18, 21 and 22 of
1258
the Bill. Similarly where paragraph 1(4) currently refers to the charges in respect of the supply these will be spelled out in full as in the present paragraph 1(5) to avoid any ambiguity.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships both for the substantive change which they make in improving the position of domestic consumers and for the improvements they bring in the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation for the concession announced by the Minister of an increase to 20 days. Naturally, I should have liked it to be longer, but we are grateful for the concession.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 93, line 41, leave out from ("paying") to second ("the") in line 42 an insert ("all charges due from him in respect of the supply or the provision of any electricity meter, electric line or electrical plant for the purposes of the supply,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 93, line 43, after ("electricity") insert ("otherwise than through a pre-payment meter").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68. These two amendments are very similar to amendments which were moved in Committee, but with slight alterations to meet some of the objections raised by the Government at that time. The objective is exactly the same as it was in the amendment moved in Committee: it is to make it as unlikely as possible that there will be a disconnection, having regard to the very serious problems which arise, to domestic consumers when disconnection takes place.
As I understand it, the Government had two objections to the amendments moved in Committee. One was that in the amendment moved, and in the amendment being moved now, the Government wish to distinguish between people who would not pay and people who could not pay. In our view that is a distinction which it is extremely difficult to make. It may of course be possible to make it in extreme cases at either end of the spectrum, so to speak. There are a small number of cases where no doubt it is quite easy to see that someone is deliberately trying not to pay. However, there are a great many more cases where it would be extremely difficult to determine whether in reality a person is unable to pay or is unwilling to do so. Therefore it seems to us that the bureaucracy which would go into trying to make that distinction is simply not worth the expenditure in time and money involved. Therefore we reject that objection and hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.
The Government also said that it would be an invasion of privacy if a pre-payment meter was automatically installed as an alternative to disconnection. Therefore, in the amendment we move this evening we suggest that it should always be an option to disconnection that a pre-payment meter should be installed; but it should only be an option and not an automatic process, as previously suggested in connection with the installation of a pre-payment meter instead of disconnection.
I repeat that the disadvantages of disconnection, the harm done to families, the difficulties which arise as a result of it and the cost of the whole process, make it highly desirable that it should be avoided in every possible case. In view of the changes which have been made in the amendment since a similar amendment was put forward in Committee, we hope that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I rise to support the case put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I oppose this amendment because, as no doubt the noble Baroness heard me say at a previous stage of the Bill's proceedings, in the London board area there are 200,000 cases a year of people threatened with disconnection. That is because they do not wish to
1260
pay their bill, are slow about so doing or are reluctant to pay and are building up huge arrears. The actual number of disconnections is only 14,000.
If we remove the disconnection and replace it with the option suggested by the noble Baroness, is that option for the board or for the customer? I say that because the board regularly exercises an option of offering a pre-payment meter or a budget meter. If terms can be agreed for back payment of the money outstanding, to be made up over a period of time, then the board will do so. Every effort is made to help the genuine customer who is in genuine difficulties.
However, bearing in mind the difference between the 14,000 disconnections and the 200,000 potential disconnections, if you remove the sanction then you are taking away a great weapon in terms of keeping down the level of debt. The bad debt figure in the London area is now well over £6 million a year. That is £6 million which all the other consumers and customers have to pay for through their charges. It is not on to take away the board's right to disconnect by insisting on the amendment. If the noble Baroness is suggesting that the area boards should have the option, I should be happy. I interpret her remark as meaning that the consumer would have the option.
10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House, our previous amendment proposed that the meter should be installed automatically. As I understood it, it was to that proposal that the Government objected. If they were prepared to accept it, we should be pleased. We modified the amendment to meet that objection.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she clarify whose option she is talking about?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I tried to explain to the noble Baroness that we originally wished to provide that the board could automatically impose the installation. As I understand it, it was to that proposal that the Government objected. We therefore produced this modified amendment which does not enforce that action on the person required to pay. That was because the Government were not prepared to have an automatic installation of the meter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is right. The amendment is worthy of serious consideration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, she made the same point in Committee. I do not find that the logic she expressed can be transferred into human terms. The main basis of her argument is that the threat of disconnection is better than the option of a meter. Giving people the option of a meter might well avoid 200,000 people owing money. That is the point of the exercise.
People will be able to resolve their own troubles by mutually agreeing the installation of a meter. It will give them the right to redeem their debt through the meter and then enable them, in colloquial terms,

1261
to keep their heads above water. On balance, my party favours what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. It is workable and more humane and in the long-term it will be better for everyone involved. We support the noble Baroness.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I listened with great care to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in support of the amendment. As I said on several previous amendments, I think that we have been here before. I understand that the noble Baroness's intention in moving the amendments is that the public electricity supplier will have the power to install a pre-payment meter when the customer is in debt. Underlying that is the intention to ensure that no one who is in difficulty over the payment of their bills as a result of genuine hardship should be disconnected. The electricity industry shares her desire to avoid unnecessary disconnection. There is no commercial advantage in losing custom if an arrangement can be reached for paying for future supplies and recovery of the outstanding debt.
That principle is embodied in the codes of practice which are currently operated on a voluntary basis by the electricity boards. They guarantee that if a payment arrangement covering both recovery of debt and charges for future consumption can be agreed and is kept to, then the customer in question will not be disconnected. As an alternative, it guarantees that where it is safe and practical to fit a pre-payment meter, then if the customer accepts such a meter he will not be disconnected.
The approach has already been a factor in the downward trend of disconnections. The figures for disconnection may be well known but I should like to repeat them. In England and Wales in the 12 months ending 31st May there were 74,695, the lowest since such figures started to be kept in 1976, and a fall of 13·9 per cent. on the 12-month period ending 31st May 1988. In Scotland the figures fell by more than 19 per cent. during the same period.
The Government have fully recognised the value of the approach set out in the code of practice. A condition has been included in the public electricity supply licence requiring that the holders produce such a code (in consultation with the relevant consumers' committee) and obtain the agreement of the director general to it within three months of the licence being issued.
We have also included in the public electricity supply licence a further condition on treatment of tariff customers in default along the lines of that introduced in the British Gas authorisation. This condition requires the licence holder to prepare, in consultation with the relevant consumers' committee, methods for dealing with customers in default because of misfortune or inability to cope with electricity supplies on credit. These methods have to be agreed with the director general and adopted within three months of the licence being issued. Any failure by the public electricity supplier
1262
to adopt such methods will be a matter where the director would be able to use his enforcement powers to require compliance with the licence condition.
The code of practice already provides that supply will not be disconnected where it is safe and practical to provide a prepayment meter. The new licence condition requires that the methods to be adopted must include the provision of a prepayment meter as a last resort. The difference between our proposals and those of the noble Baroness is that there is one extra ingredient necessary—that is, the agreement of the consumer. We believe that not only is it right that this agreement be obtained; its requirement is also an essential protection of the consumer's civil liberties. We take the matter very seriously. I know that the noble Baroness does too, but we slightly differ on this point.
It is not just the Government who take that view. It has also been taken by the Director General of Gas Supply in respect of the British Gas authorisation. He has of course a statutory duty to protect the interests of consumers of gas. The proposal of the noble Baroness could result in a situation in which customers had prepayment meters forced upon them. That is my reading of the amendment she has placed before us. I believe it is totally contrary to the approach set out in the code of practice and the new licence condition. In addition, under the terms of the Bill the consumer would then be faced with paying the charges incurred in supplying and installing the meter, over and above those that might be recovered through the use of a tariff appropriate to such a meter.
It may, of course, be the intent of the noble Baroness that the costs of supply and installation of the meter should be met by a levy on other customers. If so, it would hardly be protecting the interests of such consumers, some of whom may also be experiencing difficulty in meeting their bills, to saddle them with these extra costs. We believe that the amendment would introduce an unnecessary power. It would be an unwarranted intrusion, as has been said, on the liberties of the individual. The noble Baroness mentioned the "can't pay, won't pay" issue. We believe that the objections to the necessity under the new conditions to distinguish between those customers who are in debt through genuine hardship do exist. I understand that the concern of the noble Baroness is with just such customers and that she fears that the process will be less than satisfactory. We share her concern for the less fortunate but it is incumbent on the Government and this House to protect the interests of all consumers. We should be failing in this duty were we not to take account of the possibility that there will be customers who do not pay when they are perfectly able so to do.
Another matter was raised by the noble Baroness at a previous stage and it is worth repeating on this issue. The electricity industry already makes efforts to inform customers in difficulty of arrangements that are available, in many cases drawing the code of practice to customers' attention on each bill issued. Copies of the code itself are also readily available. I know very well that the people whom the noble

1263
Baroness has in mind may not read such codes but we hope that through the advice form, citizens' advice bureaux or other places to which those customers may go the necessary information will be disseminated.
It has been suggested that public electricity suppliers should have the right to require their customers to accept prepayment meters. When a supply is requested, it is open to the supplier to specify in a notice given under Clause 18(4) that a prepayment tariff should apply. In cases where a supply is already being given on credit and the supplier determines that this is an unreasonable basis for continued supply, he can use the powers set out in Clause 19(2)(c). In both these cases, however, it is open to the consumer to seek a determination from the director under Clause 25. Once again the Bill gives the customer the opportunity to have a say in the terms of his supply.
I have to say that I have looked very closely at this particular matter. It is a question of balance. It is a question of trying to get the right balance as regards what should be done to protect those in the community who are less able than others perhaps to appreciate the difficulties that this whole matter raises. However, I have to say, much as I dislike doing it, that I think on this occasion we have to stick by the terms of the Bill as drafted. I shall, of course, consider what the noble Baroness has to say in relation to the meaning that we interpret from the amendment she has tabled. I shall also study what the noble Baroness has said in the debate this evening. With that assurance that I shall consider without commitment what has been said, I am afraid I have to say that on the present reading of the amendments I have to reject them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I listened with great attention to what the Minister said. It seems to me that on this occasion, as on so many previous occasions, we are told that everything is in the code of practice or that it will be incorporated into the licence. However, there are many occasions when—I think this is one of them—we want the provision not in the code of practice but on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I feel I must test the opinion of the House.
10.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 65) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 33.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B

Airedale, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

1264

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson, E.

Cowley, E.

Saint Levan, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Dundee, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trafford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 93, line 44, leave out ("so").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 66. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 94, line 1, leave out from ("not,") to first ("the") in line 5 and insert ("within the requisite period, paid all charges due from him to a public electricity supplier in respect of the supply of electricity to any premises, or the provision of any electricity meter, electric line or electrical plant for the purposes of that supply,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 94, line 9, at end insert—
("(5A) In sub-paragraph (5) above "the requisite period" means—

(a) in the case of premises which are used wholly or mainly for domestic purposes, the period of 20 working days after the making by the supplier of a demand in writing for payment of the charges due; and

(b) in the case of any other premises, the period of 15 working days after the making of such a demand.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 94, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Unless with the express agreement of the customer, pre-payment meters shall not be calibrated other than to recover the customer's liability for charges set under section 20 for the period beginning on the date the pre-payment meter was installed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think that I can explain the amendment most swiftly by means of analogy. If a customer who has a charge account,

1265
for example, with Marks and Spencer, is in arrears with that charge account, no one stops that customer going into Marks and Spencer and buying goods for cash. When he does so, the company does not put a percentage on the price of those goods in order to retrieve part of the arrears.
I am not saying that the electricity companies should not pursue their arrears vigorously in the way that all other companies would and should do, both for the sake of the company and for consumers in general. What I am saying is that it is not correct to put consumers of electricity of a monopoly supplier in a different position—a disadvantageous position—from those throughout practically the whole of the rest of British industry. In other words, if they are willing to pay cash and to pay in advance for goods, they should not be penalised because they are in arrears by calibration of their meters, which means that they are paying off their debt. That would not be the case if they were shopping anywhere else except with a monopoly supplier. That is the logic of the amendment which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I think that the amendment perhaps misunderstands the situation. The purpose of calibrating the meter—it is always done in a sensible way—is to enable the person gradually to pay off the amount owing. The boards take a sympathetic view if an effort is made to make up the arrears. It is a way of preventing disconnection. The alternative would be that the person would have to be disconnected from the supply. I believe that it is an advantage—not a disadvantage—to the customer to have the opportunity to calibrate in that way.
As to the analogy with Marks and Spencer, a statement was made that if one has an account one can go in and pay cash. No mention was made of the fact that, if one has an account, one can be charged interest every month on the amount that one has not paid. That mounts up very quickly and it would be wrong for the interest on those amounts to be charged to a consumer unnecessarily. I believe that all boards make every effort to reach an agreement with the consumer. If accepted, the amendment would be a disadvantage to people.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the amendment does not prevent agreement on how the debt is to be agreed on the meter. There is nothing to prevent that, but the amendment states that it should not be done without the agreement of the person concerned. I do not think that what we have just heard is a reasoned argument against it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I understand the purpose that my noble friend has in mind in moving the amendment. However, I happen to believe that her amendment is unnecessary.
Your Lordships will be aware that paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 7 already prohibits the recovery of charges other than those in respect of electricity supply through a prepayment meter. It is not the case, however, that the Bill provides the power for
1266
the supplier to calibrate a prepayment meter to recover amounts in excess of that due For electricity being supplied through it. In the absence of any specific power, the supplier would have no right unilaterally to calibrate the meter to recover charges for outstanding debt. I hope that the noble Viscount appreciates that point. The only sanction the Bill provides in such cases is disconnection.
In view of this, any recalibration of a meter to recover more than the charges due for electricity supplied through it without the prior consent of the consumer would be unlawful and punishable under the appropriate statutes. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I should like to consider what my noble friend the Minister has said. I think that he may have gone a long way to convince me. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 94, line 20, at end insert—
("(8) In this paragraph a reference to the provision of any electric line or item of electrical plant is a reference to the provision of such a line or item by the installation of a new one or by the modification of an existing one,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Orders for securing compliance]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Use etc. of electricity meters]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to be printed.

Wesleyan Assurance Society Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.

  COASTGUARD HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
  COASTGUARD HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
  PRIVACY INQUIRY: COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
  PRIVACY INQUIRY: COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
  CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
  CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
  WATER AUTHORITIES: UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS
  WATER AUTHORITIES: UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS