Sitting of 11 July 1989

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

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL
  Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  To be considered on Thursday 13 July.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Nuclear Defence Industry
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made an assessment of how many jobs are dependent upon the nuclear defence industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Our very broad estimate is about 40,000.
    Mr. French: What proportion of those 40,000 jobs does my hon. Friend expect would be placed in jeopardy if the Green party's defence policies were ever implemented?
    Mr. Sainsbury: In that very unlikely event, all those jobs would be lost as well as a great number of others in the defence industry throughout the country.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that much more important than the number of jobs involved is the fact that the peace of the world and the future of our country are dependent on the nuclear defence industry?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The nuclear deterrent has proved its worth in the years of peace that we have enjoyed in Europe. I hope that we will continue to enjoy those years of peace because of our continued possession of an effective deterrent.

    Nuclear Planning Group
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to discuss the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons with members of the Nuclear Planning Group.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): My right hon. Friend will next meet his
    790
    colleagues in the Nuclear Planning Group in the autumn, when they will discuss a range of matters concerning nuclear issues.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Soviet Union modernised its tactical nuclear weapons in the 1980s—this decade—and that NATO, by trying to redress that imbalance, is not turning its back on peace but simply ensuring peace by having parity in such weapons in Europe?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is correct. There is enormous numerical superiority in the Soviet systems, and they have been modernised all the way along. If we are to maintain the flexible response of the mix of nuclear and conventional weapons for our deterrence, it is important that these weapons are kept up to date.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The justification for short-range nuclear weapons has been the gross imbalance in conventional forces in favour of the Warsaw pact. If President Bush's initiative is sucessful, to the extent that conventional arms reductions have been achieved or are substantially under way by 1992, is not the reality that there will be no willingness in the United States to develop a follow-on to Lance and even less willingness in the Federal Republic of Germany to have it deployed there?
    Mr. Hamilton: The reality is that flexible response is an essential part of Alliance policy. Even with reductions in conventional weapons, I think that we will keep to that policy. That was confirmed at the recent summit.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reasons for modernisation are precisely the same as those that actuated the Labour party to modernise our nuclear deterrent by the introduction of Chevaline? The only difference is that the Labour party did it without telling anybody and we do it openly.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. That was a period when the Labour party took a more responsible attitude towards defence. It is a great pity that the Labour party's new review has not taken us forward one jot.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister of State agree that one reason advanced—usually the main one—for the existence of short-range nuclear forces is the disparity between the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact and NATO? If the CFE—conventional forces in Europe—talks reduce those forces to parity and then below, what justification will there be to retain short-range nuclear forces?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the justification for flexible response is that the enemy should not at any time contemplate attack because of the series of responses that might result. That is the whole basis of NATO policy. It was confirmed recently at the summit, and Labour Members are the only people who are out of step on this matter.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest stage reached in the contracts appraisal for the radar and receiver equipment planned for the EFA development.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in respect of the radar system for the European fighter aircraft.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Bids have been received from two consortia for the development contract for the EFA radar. These are currently being actively considered by the four nations participating in the EFA programme, and a final decision will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will understand that I obviously support the GEC-Marconi combination—
    Mr. O'Neill: Why?
    Mr. Dykes: Because it is partly in my constituency. It is therefore understandable.
    Before the Opposition spokesman gets overexcited, will my hon. Friend say whether the delays, which are already excessive, are due more to technical complications or to the price that is being offered? Will there be an early end to this delay? It has gone on long enough and there are considerable anxieties among defence contractors.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about delay. The decision is taking longer than I would have liked. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the choice is difficult. It involves a key element in a very important project. It is most important that all matters, including important technical and cost and contractual aspects, are fully covered and agreed by the four participating nations.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend may be aware that the delays on the radar decision have given rise to some reports from West Germany that the whole nature of the EFA project may be reconsidered. Can he assure the many thousands of aircraft workers in my constituency, whose futures are tied up in this project, that the Government are 100 per cent. committed to it, and will do all that they can to maintain the commitment of the other partner nations to its early conclusion?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that we and all the other participating nations are committed to the project. In 1986, all four nations signed a general memorandum of understanding, and a further memorandum on the development of the aircraft was signed as recently as November last year. That demonstrates the participating nations' commitment to the project.
    Mr. Rogers: The Minister's answer that a decision will be made as soon as possible, but not as soon as he would like, does not comfort us at all. He said on 10 November 1987 that he expected a decision to be made in "early spring next year"—early 1988. It is now summer 1989. What has happened? Is this yet another example of the Government's mismanagement of the procurement industry? Will we now have another highly sophisticated, extremely expensive aeroplane flying round with cement in its nose?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman has a vivid imagination when it comes to identifying what he regards as mistaken procurement decisions. I hope that he understands the importance of EFA radar and the complexity of very high-performance radar. As I said, the decision has taken longer than I hoped, but he will agree that it is very important that we take the right decision in the right way.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend remind our German partners that unless a decision is reached, preferably unanimously, as soon as possible, the export potential of this aeroplane could be greatly prejudiced? It is in their long-term commercial and operational interests to fall into line with the Italian, Spanish and British partners on the project.
    Mr. Sainsbury: All the participating nations will be conscious of the points that my hon. Friend rightly makes. This important aircraft has export potential, although that is a long way down the line. The most important thing is to reach the right decision on the radar and to continue the project in the right way.

    Malaysia (Arms Sales)
    Ms. Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current agreements and what recent changes have been made to them, between his Department and Malaysia about arms sales.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The current arrangements are between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malaysia and are encompassed in a memorandum of understanding concerning defence equipment procurement and related services and a memorandum of understanding and a sales agreement relating to the sale of six ex-Royal Navy wasp helicopters and associated equipment. There have been no changes to any of those documents since they were signed.
    Ms. Lestor: Is the Minister aware that I had to have the mental gymnastic ability of Houdini to find out from his Department, the Prime Minister and the Overseas Development Administration whether aid was ever discussed in the context of arms sales? That was always denied, yet on Friday 7 July I received a reply saying that Her Majesty's Government had written to the Malaysian Finance Minister on 28 June saying that it would be unacceptable to link aid with arms. If they were never linked, why was it necessary to write such a letter? Why were all my questions given such evasive replies by various Departments? Why will not the Minister now publish all the correspondence relating to those deals?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My recollection is that Mr. Houdini was an escape artiste. The hon. Lady may be trying to escape from her own imaginings about linkage. The explanation is merely that the Malaysian Government suggested that aid be considered and it was made clear to them that that was not acceptable. That has been made clear to the hon. Lady and to the House in the answers that she has received.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that Her Majesty's Government deserve the congratulations not only of the House but of the country on having secured a contract that promises to guarantee jobs at home and to enhance Britain's standing and influence in an important part of the world? I hope that my hon. Friend will not listen to the miserable carping of Opposition Members which serves only to destroy our defence industries, not to build them up as he has done?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is not unexpected that Commonwealth countries such as Malaysia should be recipients of aid and,

    793
    I am happy to say, that they should purchase defence equipment from the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend says, defence exports provide many jobs—more than 100,000—throughout Britain. The attitude of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) would threaten all those jobs.

    Navtex
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the Hydrographer's department will be able to promulgate notices to mariners (a) electronically and (b) direct on Navtex; when shipping forecasts will be broadcast direct by Bracknell on Navtex; and how much British Telecom charges for operating the Navtex frequency.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The Hydrographer currently broadcasts information, which may subsequently be included in the printed Admiralty notice to mariners, on Navtex. Neither the Meteorological Office nor the Hydrographer has any plans at present to make Navtex broadcasts direct from Bracknell or Taunton respectively. Weather forecasts from the Meteorological Office are passed to British Telecom International for inclusion in Navtex broadcasts.
    I understand that the Department of Transport is charged by British Telecom for Navtex broadcasts, and that currently it costs 3·9p per word for each broadcast.
    Mr. Field: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable commercial potential of electronically available notices to mariners? Is it not extraordinary that, having passed information to British Telecom the Hydrographer's department then has to receive the Navtex signal to make sure that the information has been properly broadcast? In this day and age could not arrangements be made for the Hydrographer's department to broadcast the information direct?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion. It would be technically feasible to make such broadcasts direct, but it would not be more efficient or cost effective than the current arrangements whereby British Telecom is paid for promulgating those broadcasts, which are extremely valuable to mariners.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Does the Minister agree that one ship that might take advantage of the notices promulgated by the Hydrographer's department would be HMS Southampton when it has been repaired? When does he intend to announce the contract for repairing HMS Southampton?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but I have to tell him that Her Majesty's warships do not use Navtex.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation
    Mr. Heffer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the implications for British defence policy of the current number of countries accepting the principle and practice of nuclear non-proliferation.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: As one of the depository powers of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the United Kingdom is actively committed to preventing the spread of
    794
    nuclear weapons and welcomes the growing number of accessions to the treaty. This is entirely consistent with British defence policy.
    Mr. Heffer: As 140 countries support the non-proliferation treaty, and as the Minister says that the Government actively oppose the spread of nuclear weapons, will he explain why the Government are not reacting positively to the initiatives of the Soviet Union? Do they really believe in the non-proliferation treaty? Is he aware that the Government's attitude makes life difficult for Pakistan and other Asian countries which are equally opposed to the spread of nuclear weapons, because it undermines their position?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is letting off those nations that want to have nuclear weapons and refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty. As he knows, when the treaty was drawn up, it recognised two categories of states —nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. We were in the first category.
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend will have read the full text of Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev's speech in Strasbourg last Thursday in which he made particular mention of further concessions. Will he give us some information about how his Department will make progress on that? Are we being bamboozled by one of the biggest propaganda exercises that the world has ever known?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we must beware pre-emptive disarmament among our allies. It is right to respond to the initiatives of President Gorbachev, but we must realise that he is taking them and making gestures from a position of enormous numerical superiority, so he can afford to do so.
    Mr. Cartwright: As the Government now argue that short-range nuclear weapons will still be needed in Europe even if the present conventional imbalance is negotiated away, on the ground that only nuclear weapons can deter a conventional attack, how can they object to existing non-nuclear states following the logic of his argument and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Hamilton: The spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world is an extremely unhealthy development, and if the hon. Gentleman does not see that, I despair of him.
    Mr. Baldry: To refer back to the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), is it not disturbing that when complex East-West negotiations are continuing so many Opposition Members either wittingly or unwittingly appear to be auxiliaries to the Soviet negotiating position? Does that not demonstrate that Britain's defences will never be secure in their hands?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, but I do not think that anything has changed. Some Opposition Members have seemed to speak up for the Soviet Union on every possible occasion for as long as I have been in the House.
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister suggested that some of us speak up for the Soviet Union on every possible occasion. I object to that. My record in this House of opposing the Soviet Union when it went into Afghanistan and on other occasions is second to none. I do not want him or any other hon. Member to lie about us.
    Mr. Speaker: Everyone recognises the hon. Gentleman's position as a highly honourable Member of the House.

    Chemical and Biological Weapons
    Ms. Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the United States stockpile of chemical and biological weapons (a) currently and (b) over the next five years.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on the defence capabilities of an ally. However, the United States is a party to the 1972 biological weapons convention. This prohibits the development, production and stockpiling of biological weapons.
    Ms. Abbott: Is it not the case that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has stated exactly what its stockpile is and that the United States of America is threatening to increase its stockpile of chemical weapons?
    Mr. Hamilton: For a long time the Soviet Union would not say how big its stockpile was, and it was only the other day that it came out with the figure of 50,000 tonnes, which does not tie in with any of our estimates. We estimate that the stockpile is several times larger than that, but it is difficult for us to say with any exactitude, because a complex calculation is involved.
    The United States produced no chemical weapons for 18 years, from 1969 to 1987, but that unilateral moratorium was not matched by the Soviet Union.
    Sir Dudley Smith: An earlier supplementary question referred to Mr. Gorbachev's speech last week to the Council of Europe about chemical weapons. Is it not more important than ever that the Soviet Union's words should be matched by deeds?
    Mr. Hamilton: Absolutely—and we are watching with interest to see whether the Soviets adhere to their commitment to get rid of their existing stocks of chemical weapons. There is not much sign of it at present.
    Mr. Cohen: Has not the United States planned a large increase in its stock of binary chemical weapons? Is there a danger that other countries will say, "If the United States can do it, we can do it, too"? It is the proliferation argument all over again. Should not the Minister advise those countries to go for a global chemical weapons ban?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is exactly what we are doing: we are going for a global chemical weapons ban, which is what we all want to see. We must remember, however, that the United States went into the manufacture of binary chemical weapons because the Soviet Union refused to stop manufacturing chemical weapons. It continued to manufacture them throughout those 18 years and built up vast stocks, and eventually the United States felt that it could not stand by any longer.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Soviet Union's stocks of chemical weapons are much larger than those of the West? The Soviet Union has 14 factories, compared with just one in America. Will he also confirm that the Soviet Union continues to refuse to allow an inspection by the West of its facility at Shikhany, notwithstanding the agreement that it made with us?
    796
    Finally, will my hon. Friend confirm that all the questions that Opposition Members have asked recently have related to our weapons, rather than to the much larger stocks held by the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. The Soviet stocks are very large and, as I said earlier, the Soviets admitted only recently to having any stocks of chemical weapons at all. It was very disappointing that they were unable to show us a large plant at Shikhany which we were sure was involved in the manufacture of chemical weapons; they said that it was a purely commercial organisation with no defence interest. That gives us some idea of their lack of straightforwardness on the issue.
    Mr. Boyes: There is no doubt that the Americans are spending billions of dollars on chemical weapons and delivery systems. Nevertheless, President Bush is on record as saying that he wants to be remembered for ridding the world of chemical weapons; 75 senators have signed a note saying that they want the President to increase his efforts to cut world stockpiles; and last week a senior military man at NATO told me, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and other hon. Friends—we were discussing flexible response—that although nuclear weapons might be used first, in no circumstances would chemical weapons be used first.
    In contrast, the Prime Minister is on record as saying that the security of NATO depends on the right mix of nuclear, conventional and chemical weapons for all circumstances. This Government and this Prime Minister are prepared to use the most obscene, horrendous and universally condemned weapons first, which demonstrates that once again they are out of step with both British public opinion and the opinions of our allies.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the purpose of that question. Is the suggestion that my right hon. Friend said that we were prepared to use chemical weapons first? I do not see how that would be possible, as we have none.

    Third Zero Option
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received asking him to reconsider his attitude to the third zero.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from individuals and organisations regarding the role of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe. I am sure that the British people support the Alliance's recent rejection of the third zero.
    Ms. Short: Has the Government's view changed? The Prime Minister told us that she could do business with Mr. Gorbachev, but it seems that today the Conservative party is rubbishing all the disarmament proposals that people all over the world are welcoming. In particular, surely the Minister knows that the people of Europe and the people of Britain are excited by the prospect of getting rid of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe—East and West. We all want disarmament; it is in all our interests. Why are the British Government standing in the way of progress which would benefit all the people of the world?
    Mr. Hamilton: We are certainly not rubbishing the Soviet Union's initiatives. We welcome everything that is

    797
    taking place at the moment. We are involved, within the Alliance, in serious negotiations to reduce strategic, conventional and chemical weapons, and we are hopeful that there will be a fruitful result. However, we must be careful to maintain our guard during the negotiations and not to put ourselves at a renewed disadvantage compared with the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be nonsense if our aircraft did not have a stand-off capability when the Soviets already posses one? So long as they have their stand-off capability, surely we should have such a capability.
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree absolutely. That is very important. We should always be able to match the Soviet capability and have systems as up to date as theirs. It is also important that we should adhere to the resolutions passed at the recent summit and ensure that we keep flexible response as part of NATO's strategy.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree with the statement by President Bush last week, prior to his departure for Warsaw, that he is still confident that a conventional deal can be struck within the next six to nine months and that, following that, short-range nuclear forces should become the subject of discussion with a view to their removal, at least in part? Do the Government share President Bush's optimism or do they wish to act as the dogs in the manger and hold back the process?
    Mr. Hamilton: There is no question of our being dogs in the manger. There are a great number of complicated negotiations to go through. Six to nine months is an ambitious programme, but I am not saying that it cannot be achieved.

    Nuclear Deterrent
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the retention of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from individuals. The British electorate has consistently endorsed NATO's policy of deterrence based on a mix of nuclear and conventional weapons and the maintenance of an independent British strategic deterrent.
    Mr. Sumberg: If my hon. Friend receives any representations from members of the Labour party who are also members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, will he tell them and their leader that it is both illogical and ridiculous to maintain that they can be members of CND and yet support the British nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. Belief in unilateral disarmament is clearly written into the rules of CND. Members of CND believe that we should get rid of our deterrent as soon as possible. That cannot be combined with belief in a British deterrent.
    Mr. Litherland: Has the Minister honestly read the speech of President Gorbachev to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg last week? If and when he does, he must surely come to the conclusion that the real warmonger in Europe is the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Hamilton: It is extraordinary for any hon. Member to make a remark like that when the Soviet Union has a totally undemocratic system in which scant regard is paid to individual rights. When one considers the disparities in terms of the armed forces on both sides, there is no doubt in my mind as to who is in a better position to fight a war.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British independent deterrent is necessary not just in relation to the Warsaw pact countries but in relation to those areas of the world where non-proliferation is not a term that is used, including countries such as Iran and Libya? Would it not be the height of folly to abandon our ability to deter attacks and assaults from such countries?
    Mr. Hamilton: I could not agree more. There is a great risk that if we had a Labour Government we would get rid of our own independent deterrent, our nuclear weapons, and find ourselves being blackmailed by other countries that had such weapons.

    AWACS Offset Agreement
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in monitoring the number of jobs involved in contracts placed under the AWACS offset agreement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The offset obligation between Boeing and the Ministry of Defence is financial and is measured in terms of the value and quality of contracts placed with the United Kingdom industry. However, we are now setting in hand monitoring of employment created by contracts declared in future reports. I am glad to confirm that the level of agreed contracts won by United Kingdom companies has now reached a total value of some $624 million. This is well on the way to the $1·5 billion which Boeing is contracted to spend in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lofthouse: When the Government cancelled the Nimrod contract and bought AWACS from Boeing, did not Boeing promise 4,500 jobs in the first year in the United Kingdom, increasing to 8,000 jobs? Has the Minister any evidence that those jobs will be provided?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the allegation to which the hon. Gentleman refers is based on advertisements which Boeing placed in the national press before the contract was awarded. The memorandum of understanding is based on financial achievements. Bearing in mind that quality is also involved, those financial achievements will create jobs throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have already achieved some 40 per cent. by value of the target, although only some 32 per cent. of the time for the entire programme to be fulfilled has elapsed. That is a great achievement and very satisfactory for British industry.
    Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the announcement that he has just made vindicates the decision to buy Boeing AWACS, which was one of the most difficult decisions that the Ministry of Defence has ever had to make? Does he agree that offset deals could not be achieved in any purchase of overseas equipment by the Ministry of Defence if it followed the Labour party policy of stringently limiting the scale of arms sales by Britain and

    799
    thereby undermining the effectiveness of DESO, the Defence Export Services Organisation, which has been partly responsible for the offset deal?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is no doubt that the policies set out by the Labour party stringently to limit defence exports would certainly be damaging to the British defence industry and would make the achievement of offset agreements that much more difficult. I remind the House that all the contracts involve high technology and high-quality goods and therefore are particularly valuable to industry.
    Mr. Rogers: If anyone is destroying the British defence industry it is the Minister with his incompetence and mismanagement. On 18 December 1986 the Secretary of State for Defence said:
    "Boeing is publicly committed to placing high-technology work with British companies and … job losses resulting from the cancellation of Nimrod would be equalled if not exceeded by job gains".—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1353.]
    Now, three years later, those targets have not been reached, whatever the Minister says. There is evidence of that in the Select Committee report. The jobs that have been created are low-technology jobs. How is it that France has such a good agreement for just four Boeing AWACS aircraft while we have such a lousy deal?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman apparently spends more time reading old copies of Hansard than more up-to-date reports. If he studies the Select Committee report he will find that we are getting high-technology, good-quality awards in respect of the offset agreement. That is written into the agreement. We have already achieved some $624 million. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have the grace to recognise that reaching 40 per cent. of the target in 32 per cent. of the time was a worthwhile achievement, rather than trying to rubbish the performance of the British defence industry.
    Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that although British companies with particular expertise came forward very promptly for the AWACS contract, nevertheless Boeing had to go searching the highways and byways of British industry to find other companies to take part in the contract? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a measure of the success of the transaction that so many British companies have taken part in it?
    Mr. Sainsbury: It is a measure of success that the benefits of the offset deal are very widely spread throughout British industry, particularly the electronics and engineering industries. One of the follow-on benefits that is not covered in the agreement is that many of the firms with contracts in the offset agreement have obtained further contracts not within the offset agreement but much to the benefit of the companies and the work force.

    Hospitals
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the under-utilisation of armed services hospitals.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): The utilisation of service hospitals was considered by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in its ninth report of the 1987–88
    800
    session. The Government replied in a Treasury minute in February 1989, Cm. 323. The Committee's 21st report of the 1988–89 Session, which also deals with service hospitals, was published on 22 June. It contains further observations which are now being considered.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister confirm that the Select Committee on Public Accounts criticised Halton, Wroughton and Haslar military hospitals for failing to agree to treat more National Health Service patients? Why is the Ministry of Defence still dragging its feet on the issue? Will the Minister act immediately to ensure that all military hospitals take more NHS patients instead of leaving so many empty beds?
    Mr. Neubert: It may not be appreciated that the service hospitals already take 250,000 NHS patients. The scope for more is limited only by the willingness of local and regional health authorities to accept more contracts. I can report that since the consideration by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, RAF Wroughton has negotiated a contract with the Mid-Glamorgan and Crewe health authorities to take patients of theirs.
    Mr. Madden: Have any expressions of interest in becoming self-governing trusts been received from armed services hospitals?
    Mr. Neubert: That is, perhaps, pointing the way to the future. Who knows? I may be answering a question on that at a future Question Time.

    Force Reductions
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the defence implications of reductions in (a) conventional forces and (b) short-range nuclear forces.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The greatest threat to stability and security in Europe remains the huge superiority that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw pact allies have in many types of conventional armaments. All the NATO allies are agreed that the elimination of those disparities in conventional forces is our highest arms control priority. The allies have recently confirmed that for the foreseeable future, there will continue to be a requirement for land, sea and air-based nuclear systems, including ground-based missiles, in Europe. Security and stability of Europe would be greatly enhanced if the Soviet Union were to eliminate its huge superiority in short-range nuclear missiles.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that it would make sense to have a lower level of arms all round? That being so, why can we not have simultaneous action on conventional and short-range nuclear forces? Is it not somewhat unreasonable for Britain to insist that we can have no deal which involves any cut in our forces in Germany or which puts British aircraft with nuclear capability on the negotiating table?
    Mr. Hamilton: The reality is that NATO has already reduced its short-range systems by 35 per cent. since 1979, but, like all unilateral gestures, it has not got us very far.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend recall the words of only two months ago that the purpose of retaining the deterrent is not to use it or even threaten to use it, as enunciated by the hon. Member for Dagenham

    801
    (Mr. Gould) on 8 May? What sort of policy would that be for a Government who were attempting to have a nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. A deterrent does not count as a deterrent unless there is a preparedness to use it. That is why I believe that the country will see through the Leader of the Opposition and will realise that the deterrent would not be worth keeping if he were in power.

    Spanish Military
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Spanish military authorities.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a most successful and interesting official visit to Spain on 19 and 20 June. He had wide-ranging and useful discussions with his Spanish colleague, Senor Serra, on Alliance and bilateral matters, and visited the naval base at Rota. The Ministers reaffirmed their desire that the close bilateral relationship which has grown up between the British and Spanish armed forces in recent years should continue to be developed.
    Mr. Dalyell: Have Ministers any reason to disbelieve the Spanish authorities when they claim that the IRA team in Gibraltar had six members and not three?
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that that was anything to do with the Spanish authorities. A statement was made by Inspector Rayo to Inspector Correa of the Gibraltar coroner's office on 8 August. It was signed by Rayo and witnessed by Correa. On 9 August, Rayo submitted a signed carbon copy of the statement to the Malaga judge and attested his signature. Correa attested his signature before the Malaga judge on 22 August. The copy plus attestations was passed to the British embassy in Madrid. That copy was not sworn and, therefore, of no greater validity. We must emphasise that there is only one statement, but there were two copies.

    Trade Unions (Consultation)
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to consult the Trades Union Congress or any individual trade union when reviewing Britain's policy.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Knight: Will my hon. Friend give the House an unequivocal assurance that, when he next reviews policy, he will bear in mind—and, indeed, make it the only consideration—the defence needs of Britain? Will he confirm that the Government will not place the freedom of the country at risk by pursuing a policy of negotiating over beer and sandwiches with trade union leaders whose idea of democracy appears to be based on the principle of one man, one million votes?
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that the trade unions have anything to say about our defence policy. We shall certainly not take into account what the Transport and General Workers Union says, which is extremely dangerous and threatens the survival of this country.
    Mr. Eastham: Would it not be useful if, in future, the Minister at least discussed with the TUC issues such as the selling of the royal ordnance factories, given that three factories were sold off at terrific loss to the taxpayer and hundreds of engineering jobs were lost as a result?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says that the royal ordnance factories were sold off at great cost to the taxpayer. In fact, they were sold to the highest bidder. I do not know how else one can sell things.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mulroney.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the agreement negotiated by the Minister for Overseas Development with the Brazilian Government under which we are to provide technical and scientific aid to Brazil to help it to preserve its rain forests? Will not this be a triumph—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The agreement that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development signed is the first of its kind with Brazil to seek to preserve the tropical rain forest—the largest block of tropical rain forest in the world. It involves research projects in conjunction with us—with the Royal Geographical Society—on the sustainable development of the forest and on climatic change. As The Times said,
    "It was a triumph for—
    [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: As The Times said,
    "It was a triumph for quiet diplomacy of the sort that will be needed … to protect the world environment."
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that she was absolutely right to say last December that energy efficiency is crucial in combating the greenhouse effect? So why, according to the Government's own figures, has expenditure on energy efficiency been cut by 15 per cent. since 1987 and is to be cut in half again by 1991? Is not that the record of a Government who talk green but act dirty?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The part of the energy efficiency budget that is being cut was the part heavily devoted to advertising. In fact, the energy efficiency record of this country is excellent. We use less energy now to produce 25 per cent. more goods than was the case in 1973. It is a very good record on energy efficiency.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister is proud of her record and is seriously concerned about energy efficiency, which she says is crucial, will she overrule her Secretary of State for Energy and accept the Lords amendment to the

    803
    Electricity Bill which had all-party support and which will penalise suppliers if they fail to give proper attention to energy efficiency?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. They will give proper attention to energy efficiency—and so will consumers, most of whom wish to use energy efficiently to keep down their bills. That is a very important incentive to energy efficiency.
    Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister tell us in straightforward terms, and within the terms of the Electricity Bill, how she knows that private suppliers will take care of energy efficiency?
    The Prime Minister: Usually when we privatise things, they have to be run very much more efficiently. [Interruption.] For example, when I first came to the Dispatch Box British Steel required £1 billion per year subsidy from the taxpayer. Now it is making £500 million per year profit. That is an excellent example of the greater efficiency of privatisation.
    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: When my right hon. Friend visits France in the next few days for the European economic summit, will she urge her colleagues to continue the sustained and steady policies that have produced growth for all countries in the Community? Will she further urge the summit to support her Government's policies, which are tackling the problems of the global environment?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I believe that it was the experience of the economic summit—particularly during its second cycle, which has just been completed—that sound economic policies have produced faster growth than we have ever had before, a higher standard of living, and a better standard of social services. We shall be looking very much at the economics of better environment. We notice that it is the countries which are more prosperous and have more growth that now have the resources to devote to better environmental conditions, unlike some of the Third world and some eastern European countries. We shall be paying great attention to that factor.
    Mr. Ashdown: If the Government's policy on the environment is so good, how is it that the latest figures show that Britain's production of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is increasing at twice the world average rate? How will the Prime Minister explain that at the Paris summit next week while opposing further measures for energy conservation?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be referring to some figures that were compounded by the Oakridge laboratory in 1986. Our published figures do not agree with its comparison between 1986 and 1987. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has asked me about the fundamental carbon dioxide gas, from the figures published from the Oakridge laboratory, which we have not yet seen in detail, the Daily Telegraph gave these figures:
    804
    "Per capita figures from the Oakridge laboratory for the production of fossil fuels in tonnes of carbon per man or woman"—
    the higher the figure, the worse it is—
    "United States five tonnes of carbon dioxide for each person, Czechoslovakia 4·2, Bulgaria 3·6, Soviet Union 3·6, West Germany 3·06, United Kingdom 2·9."
    Mr. Malins: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Malins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if Pakistan were readmitted to the Commonwealth it would be warmly welcomed throughout the country, not least in my constituency of Croydon, North-West, where many constituents are from a Pakistani background?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that it will come about at the next Commonwealth conference, and it will be very warmly welcomed. I am glad that we are among the first to suggest and to approve that Pakistan return to the Commonwealth. Of course, it could not be done without the co-operation of India, through Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. We had a successful visit here last week by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto. We were very pleased that we were able to help her with some aid for rural development and extra help for the Afghan refugees, which brings our help for the Afghan refugees up to £15 million in the past 18 months.
    Mr. Fatchett: Now that the Government have rolled over to the brewers, will the Prime Minister advise the British Medical Association how much it should invest in the Tory party before the views of the doctors will be listened to?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that an Opposition party with massive investment from the trade unions was not well equipped to ask that question. With regard to the decisions of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, within two years all brewers with more than 2,000 pubs will have to have untied 50 per cent. of the number in excess of 2,000. That will add 11,000 free houses, which is equivalent to serving some 3 million customers a year. As the House knows, tenants will be able to purchase, free of ties, soft drinks, non-alcoholic ciders, wines and spirits. In addition, many of the other recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission were implemented in full.
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Watts: When my right hon. Friend crosses the England channel to visit Paris later this week, will she recall that last year we celebrated the tercentenary of our own glorious revolution which, as revolutions go, was virtually bloodless—certainly much less so than the reign of terror being celebrated in Paris?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that in 1993 I shall be able to go across by the Channel tunnel as Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Yes, we managed our revolutions much more quietly in this country in 1688 and 1689 when Parliament took over the authority for the country from

    805
    the monarch. Our revolutions have certainly been quieter. Our revolution during the past 10 years—a revolution of high living standards and high social services—has also been managed quietly and very well.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Prime Minister will be aware of the intense speculation in Wales about the future of the Welsh Development Agency. Will she assure the House that the Government have no intention whatever of privatising the Welsh Development Agency either as a whole or in part?
    The Prime Minister: The Welsh Development Agency will continue the most excellent work that it has carried out under both Secretaries of State for Wales in this Conservative Government. It will continue to attract a fantastic amount of inward investment to Wales under the Tory Government.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if there is one thing worse than the mindless arrogance of unions which bully the public before they negotiate with management, it is the supine indifference of Opposition Members to the damage done by strikes—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He must ask a question within the Prime Minister's responsibility.
    Mr. Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is one worse danger than that, it is the danger of inflationary pay demands which threaten competitiveness and put jobs at risk?
    The Prime Minister: Let us hope that the negotiations now taking place will result in a successful conclusion so that British Rail can work fully again, serving both the public and freight, and justify the great investment that this country has put into the railways, especially in the past two or three years, including the great investment in electrification. We have now the greatest investment since changing from steam to the modern railway.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Given the welcome reduction in tension between East and West, and the reduction in regional conflict, does the Prime Minister agree that the potential for arms sales has reduced in the world? What initiatives is she taking to encourage British industry involved in the arms trade to find peaceful alternative products?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we welcome the reduction in tension between East and West—we were among the first to do so—but that does not mean that the reductions in arms now being negotiated will come about quickly. For several years the Soviet Union will have a great superiority over us in conventional, nuclear and chemical weapons. The only safe course for all who believe in freedom and justice is to ensure that we, with NATO, have a proper and full defence.
    The Soviet Union is not reducing its arms sales capability in any way. It is increasing its arms sales to the middle east.
    Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend take time this afternoon to condemn the fact that physically and mentally handicapped people are being deprived of essential services as an inevitable result of the callous withdrawal of labour by the National and Local Government Officers Association?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I most certainly condemn it. I noticed that it was reported this morning that some nurseries and other services might not be running today. Once again, that is the fault of some people of the extreme Left wing in the trade unions who never think of serving the public or of their duty to the public. I am happy to say, however, that many people in NALGO went to work as usual to carry out their duties in the best possible way and in the best possible traditions of local government.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I apologise for not being able to call the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—I will seek to make it up to him.

Anthrax (Clwyd)
3.31 pm
Mr. Barry Jones(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the outbreak of anthrax in Clwyd.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): An outbreak of anthrax has occurred on a pig farm near Wrexham which has a stock of about 4,750 animals. The disease was first confirmed in a pig which died on 19 April. Since then the outbreak has continued, with the latest suspect dying on 6 July. To date, anthrax has been confirmed in 17 animals.
Under the terms of the Anthrax Order 1938 statutory responsibility for confirming the disease rests with the state veterinary service. Clwyd county council is responsible for the destruction of carcasses and the cleansing and disinfection of the premises. Disposal of carcasses and cleansing and disinfection is sufficient to curtail any outbreak. Despite these measures and antibiotic treatment of the animals, the outbreak continues. The normal course of action would be to vaccinate. A new batch of vaccine is being prepared at the central veterinary laboratories.
The continuing outbreak means that slurry must be considered to be infected. Under the Anthrax Order, the local authority is required to disinfect or destroy it. Disinfection requires high concentrations of formalin, which poses health and safety problems. Various disposal options are being considered. To date, no satisfactory disposal site has been identified.
Farm personnel, slaughtermen and others, who come into contact with the pigs, have been advised to be vaccinated. Precautions are being taken to prevent affected pigs entering the food chain, through inspection by veterinary officers on farms and prior to slaughter.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department and the state veterinary service will continue to give the fullest support to the efforts to curtail this outbreak of anthrax.
Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he know that on 28 June the community physician of Clwyd health authority wrote that she was greatly concerned about the possibility of anthrax infection being transmitted to humans from the livestock at Singrett farm? She said that she was worried for the slaughtermen and the meat inspectors. She was also worried about the hazard to the general public from infected meat, as anthrax was "very persistent". She went on:
"I consider that the practice of allowing animals to leave the premises even following veterinary examination is unacceptable in the present circumstances and request that the movement of animals out of the farm should cease under powers granted in the Anthrax Order 1938 until the animal outbreak is brought under control."
I ask the Minister to concede the point made by the community physician.
Does the Minister know that on 15 June, the senior lecturer in farm animal medicine at Liverpool university, Dr. Walton, wrote that he was appalled that a notifiable disease—that is zoonotic as well—could be dealt with in such a low-key manner. He further asked in his letter:
"Is this farmer to continue to medicate his whole herd with the very real risks of tissue residues at slaughter?"
Has the Minister done his homework on tissue residues and the human food chain? A housing estate is 15 yd from
808
the garden of the farm. Farmer Geoffrey Priestley suffers a personal nightmare. I want my constituent, Mr. Priestley, to be helped by the Government. He is a good and clean farmer and even in the foot and mouth crisis he had a clean bill of health. He has been well supported by Gatehouse veterinary hospital at Rossett. There are approximately 4,500 pigs. Mr. Priestley rents 121 acres. Has the Minister discovered the source of the outbreak? I remind the Minister that nine sows have been infected and have survived, and that in the judgment of professionals the contamination must be astronomical. Many sows must be carriers. How does farmer Priestley stay in business and avoid bankruptcy? How will the Minister act decisively to avoid a potential major health hazard?
I remind the Minister that 250,000 gallons of slurry now fill three temporary tanks and must be disposed of. The slurry becomes toxic waste when treated with more than 1 per cent. of formaldehyde. Where will farmer Priestley dispose of that toxic waste? I want the Welsh Office to pay the £30,000 that it will cost to dispose of that slurry. Farmer Priestley cannot afford it.
Next, I want the Welsh Office to implement destocking—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt a Front-Bench spokesman, but this is a private notice question and a question is not a statement.
Mr. Jones: It is a matter of great importance to my constituent. I feel that I should put on record his real worries, because at this time he has no other redress.
I was about to say that I want the Welsh Office to implement destocking, clean up and to give Mr. Priestley compensation. Why should Mr. Priestley be ruined where a notifiable disease is concerned?
Does the Minister know that on 2 July, a highly qualified veterinary surgeon from the hospital told the chief veterinary officer that he felt that the situation had now got out of control? What is the risk of the spread of the disease from manure from the infected pens? The Minister must know that a warm environment encourages the organism to sporulate.
The Minister in his statement appears to have passed the buck. He has fumbled and he has fudged. He and his right hon. Friend have been secretive and laggardly. My constituents face a potential grave health hazard and Mr. Priestley needs a fair deal. I ask the Welsh Office to act as urgently as it might. Will the Minister accept responsibility and will he give leadership? So far there has been none.
Mr. Roberts: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken a somewhat alarmist line, but I shall deal with some of the points that he raised. The origin of the outbreak has not been identified, despite extensive investigations by veterinary officers. All kinds of investigations were undertaken into the history of the disease on the farm and into the sources of food—the most common cause of infection. Manure, dust, and other environmental samples were also cultured. Again, the results were negative. Those investigations are, of course, continuing.
As to the risk to the public, I am aware of the views of the community health physician, who has advised that people who, in the course of their business, came into contact with the pigs should be vaccinated. Restrictions on the premises prohibit the movement of pigs and of any potentially infected material, except under licence. All pigs sent to slaughter are inspected by our veterinary officers at

809
the farm and again on their arrival at the abattoir. Animals who die from anthrax are cremated by the local authority, and subsequently their surroundings are cleansed and disinfected. Treatment with antibiotics is being undertaken, and an emergency batch of vaccine is being produced at the Weybridge laboratories.
The disposal and disinfection of the slurry is the responsibility of the local authority, but the disposal of the remaining waste is, claims the local authority, the responsibility of the owner, Mr. Priestley. Places where the slurry may be disposed of are still being investigated, and it is hoped to begin disposal in the very near future.
There is no compensation mechanism in respect of anthrax, because, while it is a notifiable disease, its nature is such that it is not highly infectious or transmittable animal to animal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If lion. Members doubt that, they have only to compare the total number of pigs that have died since 19 April with the very large intensive unit of 4,750 pigs.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question, which is an extension of Question Time, I can allow questions to continue for only a further four minutes.
Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend is of course aware of the seriousness of the matter, but the public will rightly deplore any attempt to frighten them or to exploit the situation for political purposes. Is my hon. Friend aware that while my right hon. and hon. Friends are confident that he will be careful to watch over the situation, we expect him to exercise the utmost vigilance?
Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, which confirm my own view that there is no need to be alarmist, and assure him that we shall do everything possible to curtail the current outbreak and to deal with the ensuing problem of the slurry.
Mr. Geraint Howells: Over the years there have been many outbreaks of anthrax in Wales, and my experience is that the Department's officials have always done an excellent job to help all concerned. I am sure that the Minister will give the people of Wales, and of Clwyd in particular, his assurance that his officials will do their utmost to safeguard everyone's interests.
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that. There have been seven anthrax outbreaks in Wales since 1983. They were all in cattle, whereas the latest outbreak is in pigs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the state veterinary service does a very good job on such occasions. By imposing restrictions on the movement of animals, and by inspecting animals at the farm and prior to slaughter, the service is safeguarding both the public and the food chain. We shall continue to seek a resolution to the remaining problems in conjunction with the local authority, which of course has a significant role to play.
Dr. John Marek: Are there enough scientific civil servants to test immediately if an outbreak is suspected? Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that, if an outbreak is confirmed, there are sufficient scientific civil servants to monitor and advise? If the outbreak is traced back to food, will the hon. Gentleman get the animal feed industry into a fit shape to provide proper feed for animals so that the public can be assured of the quality of the food that they eat?
Mr. Roberts: It would be wrong for us to anticipate the source of the outbreak when all the investigations that have been carried out so far have failed to reveal it. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the source is frequently the food given to the animals. If that source is discovered, of course we shall take appropriate action. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are adequate numbers of veterinary staff to deal with this kind of emergency.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of his problem comes from the fact that anthrax, although a notifiable disease, is not one for which his Department can pay compensation for compulsory slaughter? Will he urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to review thoroughly the categories of disease that should qualify for compensation, because this probably should never have arisen?
Mr. Roberts: I am not sure that the problem that we face necessarily has a great deal to do with the absence of compensation arrangements. After all, only 17 pigs out of a herd of 4,750 have died.
Mr. Ron Davies rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on to the statement.

Scottish New Towns
3.46 pm
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's decisions on the future of the Scottish new towns. We are publishing today a White Paper, "The Way Ahead", which sets out our decisions in more detail and builds on the earlier consultation document "Maintaining the Momentum".
We welcomed the substantial response to the consultation document, although it meant that the consultation process itself was extended. We are well aware of the key role played by the five new towns in achieving economic success for Scotland and it is for that reason that, following a major review, we have taken a measured and distinctively Scottish approach to their future.
While recognising—few have questioned it—that the time has now been reached to begin an orderly progress towards wind-up, our central purpose is to ensure the continuing economic vitality the towns have achieved. We acknowledge their importance to Scotland's international industrial image. The achievements of the new towns have been outstanding and reflect the commitment and dedication of the boards of the development corporations and of their staffs. I gladly pay tribute to them.
The towns' recent remarkable progress in creating jobs and prosperity has accelerated their growth to maturity. In 1988 I asked the development corporations to determine their key objectives for the next five years, and identify the major remaining development tasks necessary to achieve physical maturity. The Government broadly endorse the resulting development profiles and I know that the corporation staff are anxious to press ahead with these programmes. I can assure them of our support for the work that remains to be done to secure the remaining development of the towns.
Against that background, we have decided that wind-up will begin for East Kilbride and Glenrothes in 1991 and be completed in 1994. Cumbernauld will begin wind-up in 1993, Livingston in 1995 and Irvine in 1996. I believe that that timetable sets a sensible pace, based on the corporations' own appraisals of what remains to be done, but our legislative proposals will afford some flexibility, again reflecting our aim to implement wind-up in such a way as to take account of each individual town's circumstances.
In seeking to maintain the economic momentum and meet the ends of enterprise after wind-up, the Government considered a range of options. We have decided that the most effective way will be through the establishment in each new town area of a local development company. This will be a private sector company formed to own, manage and develop the residual industrial and commercial assets of the former development corporations. In addition, the local development company will fulfil, for a limited number of years, certain public sector functions in its area, under contract to the successor body to the Scottish Development Agency. The kind of functions that we envisage include the promotion of the area, the provision of premises and support for small business and, especially, for inward investment. Local development companies of this kind will, I believe, achieve our economic objectives in
812
an effective and dynamic way. In considering their formation, we shall be willing to give full consideration to management buy-out proposals.
The White Paper details our proposals for the future of community assets, such as public open spaces, halls and local sports facilities. For those, we propose a diverse solution including possible disposal to local charitable, religious or community organisations or sports clubs. The private sector and local district councils may also have a role to play.
On planning, the White Paper makes it clear that the planning system that presently operates in Glenrothes new town, which does not have a Special Development Order, will progressively apply in the other four towns as the wind-up process proceeds. The Special Development Orders will be revoked at the time of dissolution, by which time we envisage that much of the development of new town areas will be complete.
The White Paper sets out arrangements for the reconstruction of Scottish new town finances, following the financial management survey of 1986 and a thorough study by consultants on the necessary amount of debt write-off that forms part of that wider reconstruction. The approach involved is similar to that adopted for the reconstruction of the English new towns' debt in 1986, which was authorised by the New Towns and Urban Development Corporation Act 1985.
Much of the local interest in our proposals centres, understandably, on housing. I confirm our earlier commitment that, until wind-up, each individual new town tenant will have the right to remain the tenant of a development corporation. As dissolution nears, however, choices will have to be made. The Government see two distinct periods here. In the first, running to wind-up, the White Paper makes the corporations' priorities clear. The resounding success of our sales policies and the encouragement of private sector housebuilding will see home ownership this year rise to more than 50 per cent. in the five towns as a whole, compared with only 8 per cent. a decade ago. That is an outstanding achievement. We are equally concerned to see more variety and choice in the rented sector through housing associations and co-operatives. The development corporations have identified a number of locations suitable for the possible establishment of community-based housing initiatives. We shall encourage tenants associations to consider setting up locally based housing associations or co-operatives, where they will be able to participate in the management of their homes and shape the sort of neighbourhood in which they live.
A survey commissioned by the Government of tenants' attitudes in four of the new towns revealed considerable uncertainty among corporation tenants about their future wishes, as well as a lack of awareness of the full range of rented housing options available. Extensive local consultation is needed and, as part of an information programme for tenants, they will receive in the autumn a detailed information leaflet on the options open to them. I am placing a summary of the tenants' survey findings in the Library today, and the full results will be published later in the summer.
At wind-up, when stage two is reached, the option of a partial transfer to district councils is not ruled out. The alternatives, which also include housing associations, co-operatives, private and other landlords, will each be considered on the basis of their potential contribution to

813
meeting both housing need and the Government's twin objectives of increasing home ownership and providing a wide choice of tenure for those who wish to continue to rent. The present pace of house sales, the new diversification and the rents-to-mortgages initiatives, and the contribution being made by private sector housebuilders are certain to produce a very different housing scene in four years time. The tenants remaining with the development corporation at the time of their dissolution will be transferred to Scottish Homes.
For up to 40 years, Scotland's new towns have grown and matured, providing an attractive environment for their residents and an excellent location for industry, both indigenous and from overseas. The time to prepare for their wind-up, envisaged at the outset, has now arrived. The Government are confident that, with the proposals in our White Paper which I have outlined today, Scotland and the towns themselves will continue to enjoy the import ant benefits that the success of our new towns has afforded. It remains our purpose to maintain the momentum.
Mr. John Maxton: If the Government are
"well aware of the key role played by the five new towns in achieving economic success for Scotland"
why are they so intent on destroying that very success with such half-baked and ideological schemes?
Is the Minister aware that there will be considerable anger in Scotland and especially in the new towns at the way in which that success is being jeopardised by the Government because of what appears to be a purely ideological hatred of public bodies and a pathological fear of democratically elected bodies in Scotland?
How can the Minister justify the cavalier dismissal of local authorities that appears in the document and the absolute non-appearance of local authorities in any future that the Government have in mind for the new towns?
We accept that the new town corporations must cease to exist once they have completed their task, but is not the three-year wind-up period ridiculously short and will it not create enormous difficulties for all who live and work in the towns?
Are not the industrial plans, in particular, a massive rip-off of public assets in the new towns? Will the Minister tell the House today exactly what those assets are worth, what they consist of and what, if anything, the new companies that he is establishing will have to pay for them? Can they possibly do the job that the new town corporations, often together with the SDA, have done in the past?
What business men will come forward to run those companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Bill Hughes."]—unless they are being offered substantial rewards? I am sure that that will be true in the case of Mr. Hughes.
Is not one of the attractions of the new towns their open spaces and amenity facilities, including sports facilities? If the planning of those facilities and their use by all in the community is to be maintained, would it not make infinitely more sense to hand them over to the democratically elected local authorities, who know the community's needs, instead of selling them piecemeal to private companies or giving them away to scouts, churches and so on?
Will the Minister give us a little more detail today of the survey carried out of tenants' wishes for future tenure?
814
Like the survey carried out by the same company, using the same methods, for East Kilbride district council, does it not show that on wind-up the vast majority of tenants —up to 90 per cent.—want to be transferred to the local authority, not to any other form of landlord?
Why does the Minister say that he will place the figures in the Library? Is he afraid to give them to the House today? Will he give us a guarantee today that the wishes of each tenant will be fully respected and that all tenants who wish to transfer to the local authority will be allowed to do so? If not, the Government's case for choice goes out of the window.
Does the Minister recognise that his decision to transfer all remaining tenants to Scottish Homes on wind-up means transferring them to private landlords, because Scottish Homes will cease to be a public landlord in the near future?
Will not this piecemeal and disorganised approach to winding up Scottish new towns make it difficult to sustain the planned growth and development that has been their unique contribution to Scottish life, thus damaging their future and Scotland's economic future?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman asked why we are proceeding with the wind-up of the new towns. He will know that their ultimate wind-up was envisaged at the outset in the legislation that established them. It is plain that East Kilbride and Glenrothes are now close to maturity and that, over the next few years, the other new towns will also be close to maturity. Once the development of their areas has been largely completed, it would be wrong for them to continue to enjoy special privileges not enjoyed by the rest of Scotland's residents, and special funding arrangements which have accumulated substantial borrowings from the national loans fund over the years. We are not seeking to destroy success, but to ensure that the great success achieved by the new towns is sustained after the wind-up. That is what our proposals envisage.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that three years was too short for the wind-up process, but I disagree. Three years will he adequate to complete the wind-up process, particularly when one bears in mind that in the case of the first two new towns it will not start until 1991 and, in the case of the others, until some years later.
There is no question of a rip-off in the disposal of the assets. The corporations will continue to dispose of some of their assets—and, indeed, will be able to fund further developments with the proceeds—but when the local development companies are set up there will be no question of the assets' being handed to them. A price will be paid that will reflect their value at the time, and the proceeds will be for the benefit of the Exchequer.
The hon. Gentleman asked who would come forward to bid. There are a number of possibilities. An existing company may make a bid, a new private company may be established or there may be a management buy-out frame. As I said in my statement, that might have considerable advantages.
We certainly do not rule out the transfer of community assets to local authorities: it is possible that a number will be so transferred, and, if necessary, it may be possible to consider an appropriate endowment to ensure that authorities do not thereby incur excessive losses. I consider it right, however, to give voluntary bodies such as charitable organisations, sports clubs and religious

815
organisations—and, possibly, some of the industrial residents of the new towns—the opportunity to become more closely involved with the environment in which they live. Some will, I believe, wish to take advantage of the opportunity to buy the assets that they have enjoyed over the years.
The hon. Gentleman asked for more details of the housing survey carried out by Market Research, Scotland, and I am happy to give him some figures. It is interesting to note that, if invited to make a choice now, more than two thirds of those surveyed would not exercise it—and would therefore be content to remain with the development corporation—while fewer than 20 per cent. would elect to go to the district council. If obliged to choose now, 58 per cent. would choose to go to the district council; but they are not obliged to choose now. If they had to choose at the time of the wind-up, fewer than half would choose to go to the district council. The hon. Gentleman's challenge was that tenants' wishes were not being accepted, but their wishes seem far from clear or precise. That supports our proposal to carry out an information campaign to ensure that all the objections are brought to the attention of the tenants.
Far from being a "piecemeal and disorganised" proposal, these measures, to which much consideration has been given, offer the best prospect for the new towns to move forward to a new environment and to maintain the momentum that they have so firmly established.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new towns have been a great success in both industry and housing, and that there is no reason why they should not be further enhanced under the proposal that he has announced? Will he try, through the SDA, to promote throughout the rest of Scotland some of the excellent ideas that have borne fruit in the new towns? Finally, can he assure me that new towns with airstrips, which are important for executive travel in Scotland, will ensure that they are still available in the long-term future?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the proposal. I certainly agree with his suggestion that the enterprise and ideas that we seek to advance in the new towns should be promoted throughout Scotland, and, if my hon. Friend can contain himself until my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is able to make his statement on the Scottish Enterprise proposals, I think that he will then see the kind of enterprise initatives that we are keen to foster.
I also agree that the airports are a valuable asset. I have flown from the airport at Cumbernauld, and I believe that those assets should be developed, and will be to the advantage of the new town areas in future.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As one who has lived in, worked in, and at one stage had the honour of representing, one of the new towns, I am appalled by the Minister's proposals. Does he not accept that one of the greatest strengths of our new town communities has been the sense of identity and community that was fostered so carefully in them? Where will that sense of identity and community be respected in the proposed local development companies and the proposed sell-off of community assets?
Mr. Lang: I believe that a sense of community is to be found not only in new towns but in all other towns and cities around Scotland. When the new towns no longer have the special status that they have enjoyed in the past, I believe that the maturity and sense of community that they achieved will be sustained and carried forward into the future. Nothing that we are doing will undermine that.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we in Scotland have welcomed the development of the new towns, there has always been a feeling in the old towns and boroughs that the new towns have advantages not enjoyed by others that have been established for much longer? My hon. Friend's proposals will provide more of a level playing field, and other towns will now enjoy some of the advantages that may formerly have been the sole benefit of new towns. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the introduction of private sector enterprise, skills and initiative will help the new towns to build on what they already have?
Mr. Lang: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The new towns are extremely important to the economy of Scotland. Over the last seven years, some 40 per cent. of inward investment has gone to them. That has created over 30 per cent. of the jobs that have been derived from inward investment. We are keen to foster and preserve that kind of achievement in the new arrangements. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of them.
Mr. Adam Ingram: The 45,000 tenants of the new towns in Scotland and the 250,000 people who live and work in the new towns will view the statement with anger and dismay. Will the Minister give an assurance that the assets will be transferred at full market value at the time of wind-up? Will he also confirm that he is saying to new town tenants that on wind-up they will not be allowed to choose the district council as their landlord?
Mr. Lang: I believe that, far from being angry, the tenants will be pleased that they are not being pressed to make a decision on their future housing, given the uncertainty about their preferences. I canot tell the hon. Gentleman what the value of the assets will be at the time of wind-up, but he may rest assured that the Government's purpose is to secure an appropriate value for them. That value will reflect what the market is willing to pay. There is absolutely no mystery about that.
Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister not appreciate that it is hardly surprising that new town residents are uncertain about which tenure they wish to have, given his refusal to come clean about the choice that will be available to them? If it is indeed the case that the figures that he has received show that less than half would wish to choose the district council, why is he so afraid of putting that choice to every tenant of the new towns? Does he not appreciate that the Government's rhetoric about tenants' choice will sound like humbug to them if he rules out the one option that the largest single body of tenants would wish to exercise?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have heard what I said. We have not ruled out the district council as an option. We believe that all the options must be considered at the appropriate time. What is plain is that

817
the vast majority of tenants have not given adequate thought to the matter. They need to be made more aware of all the options that will be open to them.
Mr. Norman Hogg: The statement will be deplored by the people who live and work in the new towns, not least the highly professional staff who administer the new towns. Is the Minister able to say a little more about what will happen to those highly professional people? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that they are retained in the service of the new towns until wind-up in order to maintain the efficiency to which the new towns have become accustomed?
Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, wind-up will proceed over a period of years, with the last new town completing wind-up some 10 years or so from now. During that time, each new town will approach the matter of divesting itself of some of its activities—by hiving off or by the privatisation of functions—in a different way. There will be opportunities for employees of the new town corporations to move out with the functions that they fulfil. There will also be a measure of natural wastage and retirement, and even early retirement. The redundancy payment arrangements, supervised by the Whitley council and the Scottish National Joint Council agreements, will of course be honoured. In the meantime, we have already given the new towns permission to exercise the appropriate use of retention provisions for key workers.
Mr. David Lambie: As the Member of Parliament who represents Irvine new town, I, too, wish to express my anger about the statement which will lead to a rip-off of public sector assets in the new towns. I am glad that the Minister confirmed that the wind-up will be phased. Will he also confirm that the wind-up of Irvine new town will start in 1996 and that it will not be completed until 2000? I am quite happy about that, because there will have been a general election before that which will return a Labour Government.
I hope that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will confirm today that a Labour Government will rescind the statement and continue the build-up of the new towns.
I am glad that the Government are considering the possibility of a management buy-out for the private local development companies. Will they guarantee that Strathclyde regional council or Cunninghame district council will be allowed to hid for Irvine development corporation? Every survey carried out by Cunninghame district council and every ballot among the tenants of Irvine new town shows that more than 90 per cent. of the tenants want the district council as their future landlord if they are taken away from Irvine development corporation. Will the Minister confirm that if those figures are verified in any future survey, the tenants of Irvine new town will be allowed to choose Cunninghame district council as their landlord and will not be handed over to the wolves of Scottish Homes?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the wind-up for Irvine will start in 1996, by which time he will probably be resting at home with his feet up or in another place watching our proceedings. In the meantime, there is a certain amount of work to be done in Irvine. It is clear from the survey that the tenants are uncertain about their future, and if they were invited to
818
choose now, a very small proportion—fewer than one in five—would choose a district council. That underlines our conviction that it is right not to make a firm decision now, but to give the tenants the opportunity to find out more about the alternatives open to them.
Mr. Henry McLeish: I am sure that the people of Glenrothes will be dismayed, disappointed and bitterly angry at the Minister's statement. They will feel that it is a betrayal of 40 years of success and achievement in Glenrothes. They will also find the statement breathtaking in its contempt for local authorities, the staff, the tenants and the residents of Glenrothes. Will the Minister tell the House on what model he is basing the private sector company that will take over the industrial assets of the new town? If the three-year time scale is not appropriate because of the problems involved, will he be willing to reconsider that part of today's statement?
Mr. Lang: Far from our indicating contempt for local authorities, in many ways the role of the district council will be enhanced as a result of the proposals. Local democracy will be far more complete than it is now, as it has often been said in the past that development corporations stand in the way of local democracy. In many aspects, such as special needs housing, the housing of homeless persons and the possibility of taking over community assets, the district council will have an important role to play. The local development company will be a private sector company with share capital and articles of association. It will be commercially driven and will be a normal company.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Referring specifically to the industrial and commercial aspects of the proposals announced by the Minister of State, will regional and district councils be allowed to tender to purchase those industrial and commercial assets of the new towns, and if not, why not? Is it true that Mr. Bill Hughes of the CBI has been given a specific role to attract interested parties to purchase those industrial and commercial assets? Finally, is the Minister aware that a fair number of people in prisons throughout Scotland who have been sent there for corruption will feel hard done by tonight?
Mr. Lang: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman meant by his last remark, but perhaps that is just as well.
In regard to local authorities bidding for commercial and industrial assets, we are considering the Widdicombe prosposals on the economic role of local authorities and will make an announcement in due course. I do not envisage a regional council or local authority forming the basis of a bid for a private sector company. That does not seem to be an appropriate measure. A private sector bid, put together by business men who have an awareness of these matters and commercial and enterprising drive, would be more appropriate.
Mr. David Marshall: Contrary to the Minister's opening remarks, there is nothing particularly Scottish in this statement, only particular contempt for the Scottish people. The statement smacks of potential corruption and asset-stripping. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that no tenants of new town houses will have their homes sold to private landlords without their consent?
Mr. Lang: Perhaps I may first be allowed to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) about Mr. Bill Hughes. It is nonsense. I am not aware of any reference to Mr. Bill Hughes being involved in the disposal of these matters.
As for the tenants of the housing corporations, we are not ruling out the option of possible transfer to the district council at a later date. However, we are saying that now is not the time to take a decision in favour of that or any other option. The important point is to make the range of options clear to tenants, to increase awareness and understanding of the various forms of diversification of tenure and the possibility of increasing ownership—with 40 per cent. of tenants in new town houses wishing to buy their homes—and to ensure that all those matters are fully explored before final decisions are taken.
Mr. John McAllion: The Minister has already admitted this afternoon that the two thirds of tenants who wish to stay with the new towns are to be denied that choice and instead, are to be transferred forcibly to Scottish Homes on wind-up.
Another Minister has admitted that Scottish Homes will be set targets, including the target of disposing of 60 per cent. of any houses acquired within three years. Given that the tenants are to have no choice about staying with the new towns, about being transferred to Scottish Homes on wind-up and about being moved on by Scottish Homes into the private sector, how can the Minister continue to defend the idea that the Government's policies are about increasing choice to tenants?
Mr. Lang: Many tenants of new towns have exercised the choice in favour of private ownership, which has risen from 8 per cent. a decade ago to over 50 per cent. now over the five new towns and to over 50 per cent. in four of the five new towns. Forty per cent. of the remaining tenants have expressed interest in buying their homes. That is an exercise of choice which is highly desirable.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about tenants being forced to leave the development corporation. When the development corporation is finally dissolved, they will not, of course, be able to remain tenants of the development corporation and we have, therefore, provided for Scottish Homes to take over the remaining tenants who have not exercised other options by that time.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Minister describe a little more fully what he means by an appropriate valuation for the assets that are to be sold off? Will it have any resemblance to Lady Porter's valuation of a Westminster cemetery? Will he also describe what impact the proposals may have on the rent that tenants in the new towns have to pay? What impact will the proposals have on the job conditions and pay of those who work at places such as sports centres? The Opposition feel that the proposals lack rigour and seem to provide great dangers for the future existence of many of those facilities.
Mr. Lang: I see no reason why the job conditions should be affected by the change. Rent levels are covered by existing leases and will not be affected directly by the proposals affecting the new town. There will be a value of assets that the market will be able to sustain. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what that market value will be. That realistic appraisal of the value of the property will guide the sale price at the time.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his statement, the Minister said:
"I know that the corporation staff are anxious to press ahead with these programmes."
Which staff? How does he know? Has any ballot been taken? People working in Livingston are gravely worried about the future.
The Minister also said:
"At wind-up, when stage two is reached, the option of a partial transfer to district councils is not ruled out."
Will he answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about whether each individual tenant has a right to an option?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know that I and my Department have close and continuing contact with the new towns. It is clear that they are anxious to complete the development profiles. We are seeking to enable them to do that by phasing the wind-up processes as we have arranged. We have made it clear that we are not ruling out the district council as an option for tenants, but we are equally taking the view that now is not the time when there is the need or the desire to take a decision one way or the other.

Elderly Persons (Right to Buy) Amendment Bill
4.19 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish discrimination against elderly persons in access to the "right to buy" provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 by providing elderly persons with full rights to buy their own homes in local authority or housing association rental schemes, except where the accommodation has been specifically adapted or designed for elderly persons and where no such accommodation has been allocated to persons below pensionable age; further to provide no-fee arbitration by reference to the Housing Corporation in England and Tai Cymru in Wales in the case of any dispute between tenant and public sector landlord on the applicability of the exclusion of accommodation defined as specially suitable for elderly persons.
Especially in the context of the preceding debate, it may seem strange for a Labour Member to seek to introduce a Bill to extend the right to buy. Let me explain what my Bill is intended to do. The purpose of the Bill is to remove discrimination against elderly persons who are excluded by law from purchasing accommodation that is especially suitable for them whole young persons who are allocated identical accommodation can exercise the right to buy although that accommodation was not designed specifically for them. That is illogical, and the Government must face the fact that they have created an anomaly in the Housing and Planning Act 1986. My Bill represents a modest attempt to put that right and to introduce some logic into the right-to-buy legislation.
I hope that the Bill will encourage the Government to face up to the implications of the right to buy in general and to the legislation that contains it in particular. We all have to face the fact that there is an increasing number of elderly people in our society; it is sometimes called "grey power". The size of the elderly population will be doubled and trebled in the next decade. We also need to consider our view of the exact purpose of property ownership and to ask ourselves whether we consider it as particularly suited to young people and as something from which elderly people should be excluded. We must try to avoid the division of our society into a two thirds-one third society, of which we have seen serious signs in the United States and, in the past decade, increasing signs in this country, too. We must avoid at all costs introducing any legislation that would do anything to encourage that.
We must work towards the sustainability of the social housing stock and fluidity of the boundary between that social housing stock and the people who occupy it and the so-called private housing stock, albeit subsidised in a social fashion through the mortgage payment subsidy.
Accommodation for elderly persons poses particular problems. An elderly person's concept of private ownership is no longer necessarily the concept of 100 per cent. equity ownership. The elderly person's sub-group of the National Federation of Housing Associations recently did some excellent work on the problems of the 25 per cent.—75 per cent. equity stake, which is particularly suitable for the elderly. Problems also arise in the exact definition of service charges for elderly persons' accommodation, given that elderly people require many more services than others. They may seek greater security and they may have problems with additional heating bills.
822
All those factors mean that housing for the elderly will not necessarily be identical to the accommodation that is most appropriate for younger people.
The problem will grow and grow. In addition to the increasing number of elderly persons, we have an increasing number of elderly persons surviving for about 25 years after their retirement—about the same time as the term of most people's mortgage. It is not unusual for the elderly to be alive and kicking 25 years after their pension starts to be paid. That means that, in terms of time, at least, they are perfectly capable of paying off a mortgage. Ten years ago, people would have said, "What is the point of a woman of 60 or a man of 65 taking out a mortgage?" But, subject to the person's income, that is now a perfectly sensible proposition.
Most important of all is the increasing concentration of local authority and housing association activity on housing for the elderly. That is the direction in which the Government want their efforts to go. That being so, they must also think through the implications of the right to buy in this area of increasing effort.
An additional consideration is that there are now many people in areas such as mine who cannot get on the housing ladder. One of the ways in which they can do so is if their elderly parents acquire an asset through exercising their right to buy, pay a mortgage and pass it on. Nobody on an industrial wage in my area can start on the housing ladder because there are no houses left at under £30,000.
My Bill attempts to solve some of the incompatible and irreconcilable objectives of the present law. All are perfectly valid bits of social engineering, but they do not add up. My Bill attempts to make them add up
There are charitable housing associations and local authorities who want to build for the elderly. The Government want to support them, but the market does not. Housing associations and local authorities do not necessarily want to create ghettoes for the elderly. That is another important aspect of social engineering. Flats in blocks built for the elderly are occasionally let to young persons. Immediately that happens, one gets into difficulty. If a local authority nominates a young person into an elderly persons' block of flats, that young person can normally exercise the right to buy, but the elderly people for whom the flats were designed cannot. Jealousy and social discord arise in what was previously a happy community. Elderly people then ask why they cannot have the same right as the young person. The answer may be to refuse to allocate elderly persons' flats to young people. That is covered in my Bill. It restricts local authorities' or housing associations' ability to mix the young and the elderly.
Local authorities and housing associations may say, "We want to build enough accommodation of this kind so that even though some of it is allocated under the right to buy there is sufficient left over that can be rented."
It is now time for the Government to accept that they must consider the consequences of their attitude to the right to buy. There must be a sustainable housing stock. That has to be the first priority. The right to buy, if it is to be a genuine benefit, must he sustainable and not a one-off phenomenon of the 1980s to shrink local authorities down to size—euthanasia for the municipal housing sector. We must avoid creating massive homelessness.

823
If we extend the right to buy, we have also to extend the right to build, or there will not be any social housing. Homelessness and an inability to accommodate the elderly will be the inevitable consequences.
If the right to buy is not to be exercised as a political benefit that is just available to the first in the queue in the 1980s, we cannot exclude the elderly. We had the right to buy mark one—simply the right to buy a local authority house regardless of what the local authority thought. Mark two extended the right to a discount. Mark three extended the provisions to housing associations, prison officers and some disabled people. We have not faced the logic of mark four—why should it be restricted at all? It has to be restricted only because we do not have the right to build. The right to buy and the right to build should exist side by side. I hope that this Bill will force the Government to think through the consequences of the right to buy.
If we are to cease to exclude the elderly from the right to buy, we have to accept that there must be a comparable right to build so that there is a sustainable housing stock. There should be an ability to rent, an ability to rent with a view to eventual purchase, and an ability to rent and continue to rent.
This is a modest amendment to the Housing and Planning Act 1986. It will bring some equity and justice into the provision of housing for the elderly. It removes discrimination in the provision of accommodation for young and elderly people, removes the present nonsensical state of affairs, and raises the issue of whether we are building enough social accommodation or whether the right to buy was simply a temporary political benefit intended to achieve the re-election of the Conservative Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Frank Field.

Elderly Persons (Right to Buy) Amendment Bill
  ELDERLY PERSONS (RIGHT TO BUY) AMENDMENT
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan accordingly presented a Bill to abolish discrimination against elderly persons in access to the "right to buy" provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 by providing elderly persons with full rights to buy their own homes in local authority or housing association rental schemes, except where the accommodation has been specifically adapted or designed for elderly persons and where no such accommodation has been allocated to persons below pensionable age; further to provide no-fee arbitration by reference to the Housing Corporation in England and Tai Cymru in Wales in the case of any dispute between tenant and public sector landlord on the applicability of the exclusion of accommodation defined as specially suitable for elderly persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 July and to be printed. [Bill 180.]
Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  Not amended in the Committee (and as amended in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Finance Bill
    New Clause 19

      TREATMENT OF CONVERTIBLE SHARES OR SECURITIES FOR PURPOSES RELATING TO GROUP RELIEF ETC.
      (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 18 to the Taxes Act 1988 (which contains definitions relating to group relief) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
      (2) For sub-paragraph (3)(b) there shall be substituted—
      "(b) do not carry any right either to conversion into shares or securities of any other description except—

      (i) shares to which sub-paragraph (5A) below applies,

      (ii) securities to which sub-paragraph (5B) below applies, or

      (iii) shares or securities in the company's quoted parent company, or to the acquisition of any additional shares or securities;"

      (3) For sub-paragraph (5)(a) there shall be substituted—
      "(a) which does not carry any right either to conversion into shares or securities of any other description except—

      (1) shares to which sub-paragraph (5A) below applies,

      (ii) securities to which sub-paragraph (5B) below applies, or

      (iii) shares or securities in the company's quoted parent company, or to the acquisition of any additional shares or securities;"

      (4) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—"
      (5A) This sub-paragraph applies to any shares which—

      (a) satisfy the requirements of sub-paragraph (3)(a),(c) and (d) above, and

      (b) do not carry any rights either to conversion into shares or securities of any other description, except shares or securities in the company's quoted parent company, or to the acquisition of any additional shares or securities.

      (5B) This sub-paragraph applies to any securities representing a loan of or including new consideration and—

      (a) which satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph (5)(b) and (c) above, and

      (b) which does not carry any such rights as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (5A)(b) above.

      (5C) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) and (5) to (5B) above a company ("the parent company") is another company's "quoted parent company" if and only if—

      (a) the other company is a 75 per cent. subsidiary of the parent company,

      (b) the parent company is not a 75 per cent. subsidiary of any company, and

      (c) the parent company's ordinary shares (or, if its ordinary share capital is divided into two or more classes, its ordinary shares of each class) are quoted on a recognised stock exchange or dealt in on the Unlisted Securities Market;

      and in this sub-paragraph "ordinary shares" means shares forming part of ordinary share capital.
      (5D) In the application of sub-paragraphs (3) and (5) to (5B) above in determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5C)(a) above who are the equity holders of the other company (and, accordingly, whether section 413(7) prevents the other company from being treated as a 75 per cent. subsidiary of the parent company for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5C)(a), it shall be assumed that the parent company is for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) and (5) to (5B) above the other company's quoted parent company."
      (5) In sub-paragraph (6) for the words "to (5)" there shall be substituted the words "to (5D)".
      (6) This section, so far as relating to Schedule 18 of the Taxes Act 1988 in its application (by virtue of section 137 below) for the purposes of subsections (ID) and (IE) of section 272 of the Taxes Act 1970, shall be deemed to have come into force on 14th March 1989.'.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.32 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of this new clause is to help groups of companies raise finance through subsidiary companies, either by issuing fixed-rate preference shares or by raising normal commercial loans. If those shares or loans carry a right to conversion into other shares or securities, at present the subsidiary company may not be entitled to the normal tax reliefs available to a group of companies. For example, it may not be able to claim group relief, which allows the trading losses of one company to be set against the taxable profits of another member of the group.
      In some cases it is right that these tax reliefs should not be available. For example, if the conversion right is into ordinary shares of the company, the economic ownership of the company may lie largely outside the group. In other words, the holder of the preference shares or the lenders may have a large stake in the performance of the company, so, if the company does well, its right to convert into ordinary shares in the company will become more valuable. If the tax reliefs for groups of companies were available in such cases, it would be possible to devise arrangements which would abuse the reliefs to avoid tax. The new clause does not affect such cases.
      However, in other cases, the conversion rights do not give the shareholder or the lender a stake in the performance of the company. For example, a loan may be convertible into fixed-rate preference shares, or the conversion right may be into shares or securities in the parent company of the group. In such cases there is no reason why the normal tax reliefs for groups of companies should not be available. The new clause therefore provides for conversion rights like those to be disregarded when establishing the economic ownership of a company for the purposes of group relief. The group relief ownership rules are applied for the purposes of some other tax provisions, and the change will therefore affect them as well.
      The other provisions concern the surrender of advance corporation tax by a company to a subsidiary company, the payment of dividends or interest between members of a group, and the definition of a group for capital gains tax purposes.
      This change is highly technical. It will not have a major impact on the operation of the tax system. The new clause builds on the changes that we made in clause 99. If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) recalls, we restricted group relief to avoid a number of artificial devices and circumstances by which the economic control of a group was not where it might have been thought to be. There were artificial devices to create groups of companies to get group relief. In framing clause 99, we introduced some provisions that could harm certain perfectly legitimate operations.
      The new clause simply relieves the provisions that we made in clause 99 so that we will not damage genuine
      826
      commercial fund-raising operations of the type that I have described in my examples. The provision will not damage companies in that situation. It is because we have received a number of representations detailing examples where genuine commercial operations might be affected adversely that we have made these modest changes. However, the new clause will not have a major impact on the operation of the corporation tax system.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I have examined the new clause with considerable care. As the Financial Secretary has stated, it represents a small loosening of the fairly tight provisions of clause 99, which passed its Standing Committee stage with flying colours.
      The provisions of the new clause are relatively unexceptionable. However, I have one question. The Financial Secretary stated that he did not expect the provisions to make much difference to the corporation tax regime. Have the Government made any estimates of the possible lost revenue to the Exchequer as a result of this provision?
      Mr. Lamont: The cost of the change is likely to be negligible. Both the new system introduced here and in clause 99 will produce approximately the same yield as the old system, but the timing of receipts might be different in individual cases.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      PREMIUM BONDS
      'No regulation made under the National Debt Act 1972 relating to premium bonds shall be valid unless:

      (1) it contains no prohibition on the smallest number of bond units which can be purchased unless that number is less than eleven, or

      (2) it has been the subject of an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons.'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      From 1 July this year, the minimum purchase of premium bonds for savers aged 16 or over increased from £10 to £100. The new clause seeks to reverse that change, which was made by statutory instrument under the National Debt Act 1972, and to ensure, by means of primary legislation, that such a restriction on premium bond purchase can never be so easily introduced again.
      Premium bonds were first introduced in 1956. The minimum purchase required then was £1, which in today's prices was the equivalent of £8·43. The minimum purchase was raised to £10 in July 1985, worth £11·79 at today's prices. The original top prize was £1,000. It is now £250,000. However, the structure of the prize system of the premium bond programme is such that overwhelmingly the bulk of the prizes still tend to be in relatively small amounts. A key point about the threshold that the Government are now seeking to establish is that many of the prizes tend to be reinvested as further purchases of premium bonds.
      The premium bond system has an absurdly low underlying interest rate of about 6.5 per cent. It is absurdly low in current circumstances, when the base rate is so high.

      827
      The rate has not changed in recent months and in a recent written answer the Government have refused to consider changing the underlying interest rate for premium bonds.
      It is worth reminding ourselves that premium bonds are a mass appeal product with a large customer base. About 24 million people in this country hold them, and there are about 2·5 billion holdings. There are about 2 billion transactions in any one year and the investment totals about £2·25 billion. The product is clearly extremely popular.
      It is also worth pointing out that most purchases of premium bonds tend to be small. The Government have tried to disguise that fact in recent answers, statements and press releases, but the truth was revealed in a parliamentary answer to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) on 26 May, who had asked
      "what proportion of the actual numbers of all purchases of premium bonds are currently made under the value of £100." —[Official Report, 26 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 808.]
      The answer was about 80 per cent. So 80 per cent. of purchases of premium bonds under the old rules, which will no longer apply from 1 July, will no longer be possible.
      Figures supplied by the Department for National Savings to its trade union side are similarly revealing about the numbers sold in the first three months of this year. In January, the number of purchases under £100 was 169,000 and the percentage of the total 81·1 per cent. In February the number was 135,000, a percentage of 80·5. In March this year the corresponding figures were 140,000 and 81·4 per cent. It is clear that an overwhelming number of purchases of premium bonds are consistently lower than £100.
      The Government have presented their case for raising the threshold to £100 somewhat disingenuously. In their press statements and parliamentary answers they have focused on the value of the bonds issued, not on the number of purchases. In an answer on 5 May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
      "Sales of less than £100 represent only 12 per cent. of the total value of purchases."—[Official Report, 5 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 255.]
      That is the story that the Government have been trying to put across—that this is not important because it affects only 12 per cent. By that they mean only 12 per cent. of the value of purchases; it is 80 per cent. of the number of purchases. Thousands of small savers throughout the country will be profoundly affected by the change that the Government are bringing in.
      The Government will claim that they have included a protection for people under the age of 16 or people buying on their behalf. The Department for National Savings admits that it is difficult to judge what proportion of purchases have hitherto been of this type, but the best figures it has been able to supply show that about 5 per cent. of total purchases are made on behalf of people under the age of 16. So the Government's concession for minors is relevant to only a small percentage of purchases of premium bonds in any year.
      We advance a number of reasons why we believe the Government are wrong to raise the minimum purchase threshold in this way. First, there is a desperate need to raise the personal savings ratio in the economy. We know that net personal savings are at their lowest since records
      828
      began. We know that saving has a counter-inflationary effect. We also know that the only method of encouraging personal savings that the Government have so far adopted in the Budget of this year, in instruments brought forward since the Budget and in the Finance Bill, is the massive boost they have given to personal equity plans. The measures that they have brought in for premium bonds restrict the possibilities of saving at a time when it is crucial, for inflationary and macro-economic reasons, to encourage saving.
      Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about savings and investment in the context of premium bonds. Does he really regard premium bonds as an investment, given that whether one receives a return is a total lottery, and the smaller the holding, the more of a lottery they become?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Smith: I shall come to that point in a moment. It is the only argument that the Government have hitherto advanced for this measure, and the simple answer to it is that a premium bond holding is undoubtedly a form of saving and as such it counts in the overall savings profile of the economy. Of course it is not a guaranteed investment. It is a form of saving that involves taking a chance, not an assumption of guaranteed return, but it is saving none the less and we need to promote saving rather than over-consumption.
      Our second reason is that there is a need to boost the facilities for and prospects of the small saver. By definition, a £100 threshold rules out the chances of thousands of small savers and investors. I urge the Government to listen to what some of them have to say. The first letter was sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) by a gentleman in County Down in Northern Ireland, who writes:
      "My main concern is the new rules for premium bond purchases which gave hope to the worse off or small investor like myself of maybe some day winning a few thousand, not necessarily the jackpot, but this is now being turned into a club for the rich, or the elite."
      In a letter to the Chancellor copied to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, a lady in Bromley writes:
      "The only reason for doing this obviously is to penalise the poorer members of our society who cannot hope to buy bonds when they are such a price. My husband and I are from the so called `Thatcherite' generation for whom things are now meant to be so good. We will not be able to buy one of your bonds from 1st July."
      That is the voice of small savers up and down the country. By placing the threshold for a premium bond purchase at £100 rather than £10, the Government are making available opportunities for the better-off at the expense of the small saver—the person who puts aside £1 a week; the investor who wins £50 and then reinvests it; and those who live with the dream that one day they may strike lucky with only a small holding of premium bonds to their name.
      Our second major argument is that the change will not only harm the profile of savings in the economy as a whole, but it will especially harm the small savers within the economy.
      Mr. James Arbuthnot: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having been here for the whole of his speech. I accept that there is some point in what he has said. However, does he not also

      829
      believe that the change to £100 may turn a small saver into a larger saver? Those who might have been previously intending to invest, say, £30 in premium bonds will find that they must and, therefore, do invest £100 in premium bonds.
      Mr. Smith: There is always some hope when Conservative Members begin to see that there might be some justification in the arguments which are consistently and powerfully mounted from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
      In suggesting that the limit of £100 will mean that everyone who perhaps has £20 or £30 to invest will now rush out and invest £100, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is assuming that everyone is in a position to do precisely that—but they are not. Many thousands of people want to participate in the premium bonds system in the hope that they will win something at the end of the day, but they are unable even to conceive of investing £100 or anything like it, as the hon. Gentleman suggests that they may be encouraged to do by the new rules.
      Thirdly, we are deeply concerned about the whole trend of national savings administration under the Government. Already—about three months ago—rules have been brought in for a minimum £5 deposit in national savings accounts. At the end of last month national savings gifts tokens were withdrawn from sale. It is perhaps worth noting that some two thirds of national savings gift tokens have tended to be used for subsequent premium bond purchases. The whole tenor of Government premium bond advertising in the last year and a half, including by direct mail, has been based on a marketing strategy appealing to large-scale holders of bonds—one suggesting that they have a better than average chance of winning
      "a good run of tax-free prizes".
      The Government are turning bonds into a lucrative lottery for the upwardly mobile. They are in danger of turning other aspects of national savings into a similar vein. The character and the purpose of premium bonds as an attractive option for the small saver without very much money to invest are being lost in the process.
      The Government claim that they have reasons for what they are doing and a number of those were advanced in a brief debate in Standing Committee. The Government's first reason concerned the high administrative cost for small amounts of savings. They say that it costs £2 per person to administer a premium bond application, no matter what its value. Of course, such a statement ignores the statistical probability of winning, which becomes greater the higher the value of the premium bond. Therefore, the likely cost of administering the winnings will increase, too. That statement ignores the massive profit that the Exchequer makes out of premium bonds. The 6·5 per cent. rate of underlying interest gives the Exchequer a healthy profit. It ignores also the cost-effectiveness of the administration of the scheme. There are 1,300 staff employed to administer the premium bond scheme, with its 24 million bond holders. Management costs are 1·1 per cent., which I should have thought was somewhat favourable by comparison, for example, with unit trust costs. Therefore, the Government's argument about the administrative costs of the small investor in premium bonds does not hold water and ignores the key point, which is that, whatever the method of saving adopted, small savings will always be
      830
      administratively more expensive. That is no reason for abandoning them altogether, but it is a reason for deciding that we must accept the cost of administering small savings, come what may.
      The Government advanced the somewhat peculiar argument that they believe in promoting quality savings and that premium bonds are a low quality form of saving. That is where the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) comes into play. He was echoing what the Minister said on 20 June in Standing Committee. The point is that purchasers of premium bonds weigh up in their minds, when they go out to buy them, the balance of advantage between the chance of a big win and the guarantee of income against depreciation. They decide what form of savings they want to put their money into. They decide whether they want a guaranteed return to protect their money automatically against depreciation or whether having a flutter with a premium bond or two is something that they would rather do than go for some form of guaranteed income. The important point is that it is they who should make the decision. The Government should not make it for them.
      The key is customer choice. It is not up to the Government to dictate in a somewhat lofty fashion what is good quality and what is poor quality saving. 'That is a tawdry argument. It is not for the Government to say that, because there is no form of guaranteed return on premium bonds and that people enter into premium bond schemes thinking that they may have a chance of winning substantially, but knowing equally that they may not, it is a low quality saving and, therefore, they will implement a penal threshold that will prohibit hundreds of thousands of people from going into the premium bond market. It is up to individuals to make their decisions. Until 1 July, that is how the system worked. We are calling on the Government to reverse the changes brought in on 1 July, to stand up for the small saver, and to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I would not cross the road to buy a premium bond and indulge in that type of flutter, but millions of people like to buy a modest number of bonds in the hope of winning the largest prize that is offered. It is no argument for the Government to say it is a low-quality form of saving.
      5 pm
      The minimum investment of £1 when premium bonds were first introduced was changed to a minimum of £10 in 1985, which was roughly in line with inflation—though perhaps slightly in excess of it. At the present level of inflation, the minimum investment figure would need to be £12, so the Government's figure of £100 is excessive and would exclude on current figures about 80 per cent. of investors. Twenty-one per cent. of premium bond investors are old-age pensioners, and 19 per cent. of them purchase less than £100 worth of bonds.
      There can be no doubt that the Government's proposal will exclude a large number of people who want to make a small investment in the hope of winning one of the bigger prizes. The Government argue that the cost of each premium bond transaction is £2 and therefore it is not worth selling bonds to a value of less than £100. Figures provided in a written answer of 8 June reveal an overall increase in the amount invested since 1985 by those purchasing premium bonds in blocks of £10, £20, £30, £40

      831
      and £50. The aggregate of purchases individually having a value of between £10 and £50 in 1985 was £26·6 million, but had increased to £34 million.
      In 1985, purchases of £10 worth of premium bonds accounted for 5 per cent. of the total value of sales in 1985, falling to 3·2 per cent. by 1989. However, the value of £20 purchases doubled from 0·6 per cent. to 1·2 per cent. Purchases of £30 worth of bonds increased marginally, from 0·7 per cent. to 0·8 per cent., while sales of £40 units fell marginally from 0·7 per cent. to 0·6 per cent. Sales of £50 units of premium bonds also fell, from 5·7 per cent. to 5·2 per cent. However, across all those denominations there was an overall percentage increase. If the Government want to set the lower limit at a figure higher than £10, an appropriate sum would be £20, which is the point at which there has been a doubling of sales over the past five years. A £100 cut-off point can be viewed only in the context of a desire by the Government to cut costs.
      An article in The Sunday Times of 26 June suggested that the Government are introducing the £100 cut-off point as they no longer need to borrow money through premium bond sales because they are receiving so much into the Exchequer from privatisation and other measures. But if we are to believe the Department for National Savings' annual report for 1987, people willing to invest sums averaging more than £1,000 in the hope of having a good run of tax-free prizes were targeted in a drive to increase investment, which included direct mail.
      The evidence is that the Government are encouraging people with £1,000 or more to invest in premium bonds because the Government make a large profit from such investors, but that they do not want to be bothered with the ordinary investor, such as the pensioner who likes a little flutter. Such investors are not to be allowed freedom of choice, which is so vaunted an element in the Government's prospectus for the 1980s.
      The Department for National Savings received a large number of complaints about the higher level of minimum purchase. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the scale of that protest. All the evidence is that people of small means are happy to forgo any interest on their investment in the hope of making a tax-free capital gain from premium bonds. It is not too late for the Minister to think again and to make millions of people much more contented. When one considers the current state of the opinion polls, that aspect is not one which the Minister can ignore. I should not want to do anything that would help him politically, but there is widespread concern that millions of investors will be arbitrarily excluded by the £100 cut-off point, which has no economic or fiscal justification other than the Government's dislike of having to meet the cost of £2 per transaction unless an individual purchases at least £100 worth of premium bonds. I ask the Minister to consider small investors and to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Tim Smith: It is a fascinating commentary on the priorities of the Labour party that of all the areas of tax reform that might be thought important, when it comes to starting the Report stage of the Finance Bill, with the opportunity to instigate a major debate on tax reform, the Opposition's choice of subject is premium bonds. It is also
      832
      a perverse comment on the House. Although the premium bond scheme is important, there are many more important areas of tax reform that the House ought to be debating.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and hon. Friends also tabled new clauses 1, 2 and 6, but they were ruled out of order. They dealt with very important matters concerning privatisation and the amounts that the taxpayer received as a result of sales of public assets. I would dearly have loved to participate in a debate on those new clauses, but they were not selected. Perhaps that is one of the problems about our rules of procedure.
      Mr. Smith: The fact that those new clauses were not selected has nothing to do with me. They would have affected only a handful of companies. Surely most people are more keen to hear the Labour party's views about the aspects of tax reform that affect most taxpayers. For example, what does the Labour party think about the reform of income tax? We are not considering that. We are discussing the details of the premium bond scheme.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) advanced three arguments against the changes that the Government recently announced and which took effect from 1 July. First, he pointed out that the savings ratio had fallen substantially over the past few months. That has happened not so much because savings have diminished as because borrowings have increased. Of course, the savings ratio is a net figure.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the only measure that the Government had advanced to encourage savings was an increase in the tax relief for personal equity plans. By far the most effective way of securing an improvement in the savings ratio is an increase in interest rates. We have had a substantial increase in interest rates, which has cut borrowing and encouraged savings. The idea that improved tax relief for PEPs has anything to do with encouraging saving is misconceived. The PEP scheme is about encouraging people to invest in equities. The chances are that there will not be great additional savings because of the tax relief for PEPs, but that because of the relief people will reorganise their investments to take advantage of it.
      National savings, of which premium bonds form a small part, are part of the Government strategy to encourage an improvement in the savings ratio. It must be obvious that when the Government are running a large surplus they have rather less need than in previous years to have an attractive national savings package. For that reason, I certainly would not want an improvement in the interest paid on premium bonds. If people are content with the present interest rate, so be it. I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths): I do not think that premium bonds are attractive and I, too, would not want to participate in that scheme.
      Are premium bonds an investment? The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury described them more than once as an investment. I can see that they are savings from the Government's point of view, because they contribute to national savings. Putting one's money into a premium bond is not my idea of an investment. The game was given away when the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury described buying premium bonds as "having a flutter" and the hon. Member for Bridgend talked about a "type of flutter". That is how people see it.

      833
      One not only loses one's stake but gambles on whether one will get a return. If one has only one or two bonds, the chances of getting any return—[Interruption.] It is not an investment. If an investment adviser advised a person to put his money into premium bonds, he might well be guilty of failing to give best advice, as provided for in the Financial Services Act 1986. I am doubtful whether premium bonds are an investment at all, according to the standards by which I judge investments. The chances of getting a return are remote for the person who puts only a few pounds into premium bonds. All that happens is that he sees his pounds devalued by inflation over the years.
      Secondly, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that he was worried about the effect of the changes on the small saver, and I understand that. I am not sure that we necessarily want to encourage people to undertake this form of saving. It is a bad investment. I doubt even whether it is a good gamble. It is the best gamble for the person who can afford to put in £10,000. Then one's chances of getting a monthly prize are 11 to 10 —there is nearly an even chance of getting a monthly prize. Over the year, on average, one will receive 10 or 11 prizes, the value of which will vary. Premium bonds are not a good bet for anyone, but they are a better bet for a large holder. For a small holder, they are not a good bet. Perhaps it would be better if we did not encourage people with small sums, which perhaps they cannot spare, to buy premium bonds.
      5.15 pm
      Thirdly, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made a point about the administration of national savings. The Government are right to be worried about those costs. I suggest that the Public Accounts Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is Chairman, might consider those administrative costs. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that some changes have been made recently. I suspect that they occurred because the cost of administering some small accounts did not justify their continuance. The Treasury is right to be concerned about the high administrative cost of small holdings.
      We have heard that 1,300 staff are employed to administer the premium bond scheme, and that does not seem unreasonable, given that there are 20 million holders. We have been told that the costs of administration were 1.1 per cent. of the value of the bonds, which probably compares favourably with unit trusts in the private sector. The Public Accounts Committee could usefully consider that issue.
      Whether £100 is the right level is a matter for judgment. Usually, in privatisation issues, the qualification level has been rather higher. However, it is true that when the premium bond scheme was introduced in 1957 one needed to buy only one £1 bond. Inflation may well have multiplied that by a factor of 10, but certainly not by a factor of 100.
      Labour Members have not advanced sufficient arguments to warrant supporting the new clause. I intend to oppose it.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said some very strange things. He said that the purpose of the Chancellor's improvements to the PEP scheme was not to
      834
      attract more small savers and to broaden the number of savers. The Chancellor has said that it was indeed intended to extend saving. He has trumpeted the PEP scheme as an illustration of his desire to extend saving and to make it attractive to more people. It is against that background that we must judge this action by the Government as likely to have precisely the opposite effect and to discourage small savers. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman for casting doubt on some of the Chancellor's motives behind his PEP proposals.
      Then the hon. Member for Beaconsfield suggested that, because premium bonds are a poor investment, the only sensible thing to do is to put more, rather than less, money in: whereas the logic of the argument is that, if they are a poor investment, people should not be encouraged to put a great deal of money in them. If the Economic Secretary were to say to me, "I am thinking of putting £5 on a bet that England will win one test before this series is over," I might say to him, "As a mixture of patriotism and a long shot, perhaps you can consider it." If the hon. Gentleman were to say to me, "I will put £100 on the possibility that England will win one test before the series is over," I would tell him that that would be very foolish. The unwiseness of such a speculation would lead me to counsel a small investment only. Those who rightly argue that premium bonds are a pretty poor bet should be the last to suggest that the minimum investment required be increased.
      If it is the essence of the Government's argument that premium bonds are not quality savings, there are a number of steps that they could take. They could, for example, allow people to invest much smaller sums and not tempt them to invest large sums. That is the purpose of the new clause, as it was the basis of our arguments in Committee. If it is a bad bet, with an underlying rate of interest of only just over 6 per cent., none of which may accrue to the investor because he might not win a prize, people should not be encouraged to make a high minimum investment.
      The Government could take other steps. They could improve the underlying rate of interest, but there is no sign of their doing so because they realise that they are on to a good thing. They are charming a great deal of money out of a great number of people for a very low rate of interest, which most of the investors never even receive. That is a comfortable arrangement for the Government. Indeed, substantial parts of the private sector might wish that they could follow suit.
      If the Government believe that investment in premium bonds is poor quality saving that should not be encouraged, they have another option: they could abandon it altogether. Because of the Government's high rate of return, they will not do that, but they could at least stop advertising it and stop sending out direct mail encouraging people to invest in it. The Government are indulging in rather curious double standards. They cannot both condemn the product and try hard to sell it. Indeed, they are trying to sell it more selectively. They cannot be bothered with a £5 minimum investment in premium bonds, but they want to open the door to the few people prepared to invest £10,000. That would allow the Government to offer the service for very little expenditure. They would have a comfortable return for a minimum of effort.
      It is unfortunate that the Government's attitude to a £100 minimum investment in premium bonds is characteristic of their attitude to national savings in general. The £5 minimum deposit in a national savings

      835
      account was a serious blow to those trying to encourage the habit of saving among young people. Many people simply cannot find £5 at one time. They want the opportunity to save regularly through small sums. The Government's attitude is spreading to all aspects of national savings. If they get away with this proposal, they will probably raise the minimum national savings deposit again and again and shut off many avenues for the smaller savers.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: Is not the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying that those who have only small sums to invest should not choose premium bonds?
      Mr. Beith: I certainly would not advise them to invest in premium bonds. However, as experience has shown that half the population wants to invest in premium bonds, it is not right to make the only way that they can do so be by investing large sums. They may not have very much money and they should be allowed to invest small sums. Indeed, gambling is least harmful when it is neither compulsive nor involves large proportions of an individual's income or disposable resources. The Government are moving in the opposite direction by making one of the forms of investment that comes closest to gambling available only to those prepared to invest large sums of money. They are closing the door against the small saver, and that is particularly unwise with premium bonds.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield pointed out that the Government do not need to be worried about national savings because their requirements for funds are now significantly lower. The Government have the opposite to a funding problem; they have a budget surplus, so they do not need a great deal of national savings. The hon. Gentleman missed the point about savings. One of the arguments for saving at a time of high inflation, especially with the problems in the British economy during the past 12 months, is that savings divert from consumption. One of the pressures in the economy during the past year has been the consumption of imported goods in the domestic market. It is therefore sensible for the Government to encourage saving.
      We want to press the Government on the whole issue of encouraging small savings. If large numbers of people who are not saving could be encouraged to do so, it would have a beneficial effect in the current economic circumstances. The arguments for national savings are not simply those of Government funding; they relate also to the general health of the economy. That applies not only to national savings but to all forms of private sector saving. It is currently in the public interest to encourage saving, even though the Government's need of funding is much less than it was when national savings were first introduced and some of the other savings devices were invented.
      Premium bonds are not a good method of saving and I would not recommend them. The Government run the scheme and want to encourage people to participate in it, but only if they put up a large stake. It is little different from replacing a small stake slot machine in a public place with one in which the minimum stake is a very much larger coin—a £1 coin instead of a 20p coin. The likelihood is that that will encourage people to be less prudent when putting money into premium bonds. It is part of the
      836
      Government's attitude towards small savers that must be changed for the good of the general health of the economy and the encouragement of more widespread saving.
      Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Mr. Marshall.
      Mr. Taylor: You have made an understandable mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one which I am glad to say our wives do not make.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
      Mr. Taylor: I wish to begin by declaring a lack of interest. Having been a premium bond holder for many years, I have yet to win anything and, indeed, can no longer remember where I have put my bonds. That might tell the House something about my character that I prefer not to mention.
      Premium bonds were introduced at a time when the Government of the day were searching for any idea that might knock up some savings and help with the national debt. Subsequently, many more sophisticated methods of savings have been developed, not only by the Government but by the private sector. There has been an incredible change in the way that building societies attract private savings. They use many techniques, such as saving on a regular basis correlated with save-as-you-earn option and share purchase schemes. Those techniques have enabled the small investor to put money aside regularly. They provide a much more interesting and, hopefully, fruitful form of investment than premium bonds have ever offered. The original objective of premium bonds, which was to enable the small investor to save simply, is no longer relevant because there are many other schemes through which the small investor can accumulate his savings.
      The rate of return on premium bonds is difficult to calculate, so it is increasingly unlikely that they would be recommended by any prudent financial adviser—as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) pointed out. As the savings market becomes more sophisticated, more and more small savers will be encouraged to put their money into schemes other than premium bonds and there will be a relative decline in interest. Indeed, the Government have introduced new techniques to encourage investment, such as through the employee share ownership schemes which feature largely in the Budget and which involve many workers putting aside sums of money to purchase shares in the companies for which they work.
      Those who may not fall within the classic category of small investors are, nevertheless, keen to put aside relatively small sums, and for them the personal equity plans are both interesting and attractive. They answer the needs of small investors and there are major tax incentives for them to adopt those schemes.
      Premium bonds are an outdated investment. It would be prudent for the Government to insist on a minimum purchase level because the scheme's administrative costs are high. It is counter-productive if the Government are losing £2 for every £10 subscribed in small units. It does not make sense for the Government to be that profligate on administrative costs. In addition, as I said earlier, if

      837
      people wish to have the fun of a gamble, building societies and banks enable small savers to accumulate sufficient money o purchase a batch of bonds.
      For all these reasons, the Government are right to consider having a minimum purchase level for premium bonds and the Opposition's new clause asking for more inquiries into the performance and administrative costs of premium bonds is unnecessary. It is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that more people in Britain should save rather than consume and I hope that the Government will introduce more measures to encourage that trend. Future Finance Bills should contain even more incentives for people to put money into PEPs. There should be even more opportunities to reduce the administrative costs of PEPs.
      Such schemes, along with employee share ownership, are sensible and desirable objectives for the Government. They should not continue to market premium bonds in small units, as they were originally marketed, which are no longer as attractive as they once were. I strongly support the Government's attempt to reform the area and I shall not support the new clause.
      5.30 pm
      Dr. Lewis Moonie: The contributions of the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Esher (Mr. Taylor) are ample illustration of how out of touch Conservative Members are with the feelings of ordinary British people.
      Let me at the outset declare an interest. I possess premium bonds—£17 worth of them. They have accumulated over the years but I have not won a sausage. I have never come anywhere near a prize. My mother-in-law has an even smaller holding and she has won two or three times, which shows that a big holding is not necessary in order to make a return.
      We should lay the fallacy that premium bonds are a good investment for somebody who is well-to-do and a bad investment for somebody who is poor. As an investment they do not hold water. As a gamble, they do. The return on the money put in is in direct proportion to the number of units bought. The chance of a unit winning is the same whether one has 10,000 or 10. A person who increases his holding from 10 to 10,000 increases the risk 1,000-fold. A holder of a larger number of bonds is more likely to win a prize than the holder of a few, but only in proportion to the number held. Not only that, but inflation cuts into one's money. That is particularly true under this Government when the value of a £10,000 holding for a person who is not lucky enough to win a prize, which could well be the case, will drop by £800 this year, thanks to the Government's excellent economic policies.
      The Economic Secretary wrote to me on the subject in June after I made representations to him on behalf of several constituents—not necessarily my supporters—who contacted me about the problem. His comments illustrate the Government's reaction to the scheme. He says:
      "Like all government departments, National Savings has to operate within a cash limit. So they regularly review their administrative costs to see if sensible economies can be made to make the business more efficient and less expensive to run. National Savings priorities are also affected by the fact that the government is no longer a borrower but is currently repaying debt. Consequently the main need for savings is to refinance borrowings which are due for repayment and to
      838
      improve the 'quality' of debt. High quality savings are those which people will retain for some time and cannot withdraw to spend at short notice without any financial penalty."
      That illustrates some of the Minister's justifications for changing the scheme.
      The Minister went on to say:
      "Each Premium Bond purchase costs National Savings nearly £2 (a significant portion of which is the fee payable to Girobank.)"
      The Public Accounts Committee could well look into that to see whether the Government are getting a good deal. The Minister goes on:
      "So small transactions are very unattractive when National Savings are economising on their running costs."
      He goes on to raise the red herring of the average purchase price being over £150, but I grant that he does say that lower levels of purchases account for a far higher percentage of the total number of transactions which, as has been said, is well over 80 per cent. of the savings.
      The Minister attempts to justify the increase in the minimum amount by acknowledging that there are those who may find saving up £100 beyond their reach, but he says that he wonders
      "whether people with only a small sum at their disposal would necessarily find Premium Bonds, which do not offer regular interest but only the chance of prizes, the best place to put their money."
      That is the whole point. The person who buys premium bonds is not putting his money away in the expectation of seeing it grow; he is putting it away as a gamble with the hope that he will win a prize as a result. It is a form of gambling, fair enough, which has been legalised or institutionalised by successive Governments over the years. There is no question of the Government stopping it, so far as we know. They claim to be in favour of it in the same way as everyone else, so why debar 85 per cent. of those who purchase small quantities of premium bonds from doing so, turning the scheme into a rich man's club?
      It is clear from the Minister's letter to me that he has no concern for the many small investors or gamblers who will be debarred from participation in what is, from the Government's point of view, an ideal savings scheme. After all, it is a long-term method of saving. Despite the fact that people can take their money out when they like, they do not. Like me, they have had premium bonds for as long as 20 years and have left them to gather dust in some corner of a drawer. That is what people do. They do not buy them and trade them in two of three weeks later.
      From that point of view, premium bonds are a high quality form of saving. They carry an absurdly low interest rate, particularly under the Government's present inflationary policies which push their real rate of return down to an all-time low. Overall, the scheme is cheap to administer because the costs are one off at the time of purchase. There are no continuing costs of administering accounts as in other forms of saving. It would be much fairer if, when the Minister replies, he were to compare the total cost of administering the scheme with other forms of savings, rather than singling out one detail for comparison.
      The Government should tell us what their ultimate intention is. Do they intend to keep the premium bond scheme going or not? Have they looked into alternative methods of purchase in order to reduce the initial cost? Have they compared the overall costs with other forms of national saving? Have they looked at other methods of discouraging early redemption or even charging a fee for

      839
      the purchase of bonds, which people might well find an acceptable alternative to debarring them from purchasing them altogether? I suspect that the Government have not.
      This is a small matter to those such as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield who have their airy-fairy heads in the clouds. They have no concern for the views of ordinary people and that is why the Government's popularity is sinking faster and faster, week by week. They have a callous disregard for what people think, and ultimately they will pay the penalty for it.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: Like the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), I would cross the road to buy a premium bond. He and I are in the same league. I declare an interest because in about 1981 I bought myself about £10 worth of premium bonds. I have to disagree with my hon Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), because that was the best investment that I ever made. I have not won any prizes, but the pleasure that I have had from notionally spending my £250,000 is out of all proportion to the mere £10 that they cost me. I have calculated that, with my £10 worth of premium bonds, I can expect to win a prize within the next 116 years. If the Conservative party remains in government, health care will improve so much that by then I shall be a hale and hearty 152-year-old. I shall not regret that investment.
      I bought £10 worth of bonds because that was the minimum investment at that time. If I were making the same decision today I should buy £100 worth. I would increase rather than reduce my saving. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mistook my intervention in his speech on that point, although I am sure that he did not do so deliberately. Some people will be unable to afford £100, although luckily, under this Government, they will be fewer than otherwise. Such people should consider whether they should invest in premium bonds in the first place. Perhaps they should consider more sensible investments which would bring them more money, if less imaginative pleasure.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an extraordinary speech. He said that people with small savings should be advised not to buy premium bonds but that we should encourage them to buy bonds by making it as easy as possible. It is characteristic of his party, although not usually of him, to advise people both to do and not to do something in the same breath.
      Mr. Beith: My advice was simple. People should not buy premium bonds, but if they do, they should not buy many.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: I am not sure that I understand that. The hon. Gentleman advises those with the least money to buy premium bonds. My advice to them is that if they are to make the savings that they should try to make, they should make a more sensible investment.
      The hon. Gentleman should not ignore the costs of administering tiny holdings such as mine. It is uneconomic to administer my £10 investment. For the Government, mine is a bad investment. While the increase in the minimum investment to £100 is not overdue, it is justifiable and we should support the Government.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: There has been a remarkable consensus in the House that
      840
      premium bonds constitute a poor investment instrument. If our constituents read Hansard and take our investment advice seriously—which they should not, because we are not registered or competent investment advisers—and if they have any regard for the financial acumen of either major party, they will buy even fewer premium bonds.
      At a time when interest rates are rising, the opportunity cost of holding premium bonds, as opposed to other instruments, increases, so logically still fewer people should hold still fewer premium bonds. As a result, it is fair to assume that premium bonds will account for an even lower proportion of total savings than at present. I share the surprise of my hon. Friends that the Opposition feel that it is worth putting so much emphasis on this tertiary issue, whether we are considering fiscal policy or aggregate savings and what can be done to increase them.
      Several of my hon. Friends have made the interesting point that, like any other savings instrument, premium bonds have a fixed transaction cost. That cost is the same whether £100, £1,000 £100,000 or any other sum is invested. As it is a fixed cost, for relatively small sums it is a high proportion of the total amount being saved and for larger sums it is a smaller proportion of the total amount and may be insignificant.
      Against that background, it is curious that the Opposition oppose the Government's new regulations which establish a minimum amount of £100 for any one investment in premium bonds. If the Government do not make such a regulation, the transaction cost on relatively small sums will be too high a percentage. For example, a transaction cost of £2 on an investment of £10 represents 20 per cent. of the investment. Even if the Government paid no premiums in the form of prizes, 20 per cent. of the sum that they received would go on the cost of registering the purchase of the bonds.
      5.45 pm
      Dr. Moonie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the initial cost is paid by the bond holder because the bond is not included in the draw for the first three months after the purchase is made?
      Mr. Davies: The essential point is that a fixed transaction cost can be a high proportion of the sum invested when the investment is small. The Government, that is to say the taxpayers, lose out because the cost of raising the money or attracting that proportion of national savings is high. The money does not go to the saver but is simply wasted on transaction costs.
      It is extraordinary for a party that aspires to manage this country—heaven help us—to advocate a policy under which the Government and the taxpayers lose money in the course of promoting a particular savings scheme and the saver does not receive that money or enjoy a return on it. There is a high cost to the Government and a low return, and, therefore, a low inducement to save. That is not a rational policy for husbanding the nation's resources. I hope that the Opposition will have second thoughts about that policy and consider whether it is a sensible approach.
      What can be done about premium bonds? Can any change usefully be made? Several hon. Members on both sides have suggested a possible answer to that question. Premium bonds are a curious hybrid instrument. They are neither a gambling instrument nor a savings instrument. They are not an effective savings instrument.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has just made the extraordinary statement that premium bonds are neither a gambling nor a savings instrument. Surely they are both.
      Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman had listened he would have heard me say that they are neither an effective gambling instrument nor an effective savings instrument. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not deny that I used the word effective in both contexts. They are an attempt at a savings and a gambling instrument, but they are not effective as either. They are not effective as a savings instrument because the return is not sufficiently high and, as I have already said, at a time of high interest rates the return is particularly unattractive. They will not attract more savings, and—as I have already pointed out—relatively low levels of individual unit investment will not make them very attractive to the Government either, because the transaction cost involved in their issue will be disproportionately high.
      Premium bonds are not very effective on either the demand side or the supply side: they neither induce households to save nor attract funds into national savings in a way that is cost effective for the Government. Nor are they effective as a gambling instrument, because they are competing against all the other forms of gambling available to the consumer and are structured in such a way that investors do not lose their stake, which means that the potential reward is much lower. Those who gamble on roulette or the horses tend to think in terms of the sum that they will receive if they win. By definition, premium bonds can never compete.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I admit that I have made a very quick and rough calculation, but it would appear from the figures provided in the answer to which I referred earlier that the amount invested in premium bonds worth between £10 and £50 has increased slightly ahead of inflation over the past few years. That suggests that, at a time when savings have been going down, premium bonds have been a relatively successful way for the Government to raise money.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should remember that interest rates, both real and nominal, have risen significantly during the past year, for reasons of which we are all aware and of which many of us entirely approve. I do not think that indices running over a number of years are necessarily relevant to a policy decision that must be made now.
      I have tried to demonstrate—and I have not been contradicted on this point, although I have allowed a number of Opposition interventions—that premium bonds probably will not set the markets alight, in either the savings or the gambling sector. They are neither competitive nor a cost-effective way for the Government to raise money from small savers, even if small savers are likely to be induced to invest large sums in aggregate across the country.
      What, then, should we do about premium bonds? I have no objection to their remaining, although I believe that, for the reasons that I have given—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now shifting away from that difficult definitive line between the new clause and a general discussion about the premium bond scheme. We cannot engage in the latter.
      Mr Davies: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the point raised in the new clause about the minimum amount that is to be available for purchase at any one time itself raises the question whether premium bonds constitute an effective contribution to national savings. In the light of arguments produced this afternoon, I feel that it would be a good idea for both Government and Opposition to give some thought to whether an instrument could be devised that satisfied the gambling instincts of the British public —perhaps a kind of national lottery, in which the investor may lose his stake, but the return—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard me the first time. I repeat that we are discussing a narrow modification to the premium bond scheme, not gambling, lotteries or the premium bond scheme in general.
      Mr. Davies: I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that if the Opposition have any suggestions to make about the Government's new premium bond regulations—which, surely, can be assumed from their tabling the new clause—they should be thinking along rather different lines. That, surely, is a legitimate observation. The course on which they are embarked is not sensible; nor is it targeted towards either increasing savings or ensuring that a greater proportion of the potential consumer demand for gambling facilities is mobilised to the benefit of national savings and the Government's fiscal surplus. It is also not a very effective way of increasing the return to the small saver.
      In my view, the new clause addresses none of those important and legitimate concerns. I should like to think that, before the end of the debate, the Opposition will give some thought to them, and consider making a more valuable contribution.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I have been tempted to speak by some of the remarks that I have just heard. We have been presented with what is probably the financier's approach to money—and monetary—matters. I have written to the Minister many times, enclosing letters that I have received which beg me not to allow the Government to change the present arrangements for premium bonds. Our new clause is concerned with the ordinary person's approach to how he should deal with money, how he should save and how he should encourage his children to save, which is probably more important.
      I first came across premium bonds when I won £50 in a draw at work. If I had not bought £50 of premium bonds, I would have gone up the road and spent the money. It was very handy to be able to purchase premium bonds there and then, on a whim. I still have them. They were a very poor investment, without a shadow of a doubt: other forms of investment could have made a good deal more. Nevertheless, I had the choice and was entitled and able to deal with it. The increase in the minimum investment from £50 to £100 takes that choice away from many people.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: When did the hon. Gentleman make his investment? Allowing for inflation, that £50 could well be worth the £100 that is now being suggested.
      Mr. McKay: Inflation is one of the reasons why it was a poor investment. The point is, however, that at the time it was a good one. Spending my potential winnings gave

      843
      me a good deal of pleasure, because each month I was sure that it was my turn. That is why one-armed bandits make so much money; everyone lives in hope.
      My son had considerable savings from his grandfather, who had two schemes. One was to buy a premium bond, and the other was to keep a savings book. Not only did he show my son two ways of saving money, but he encouraged him to save.
      People who gamble do not buy premium bonds. However, the bonds allow grandfathers, such as my son's grandfather, to encourage their grandchildren to save in the manner that they think is best. That is important. The people who wrote to me said that they had very little money to pass on to their sons or grandsons but that they could teach them about the value of money in some shape or form.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McKay: No, because I know what the hon. Gentleman will say.
      I agree that if we want value for money, we should encourage people to invest their money in other ways. However, that is what people have chosen to do. If I told my constituents how to spend their money they would tell me where to get off—and quite rightly so. Those who have written to me want to be able to purchase premium bonds in £10 units. Why should we take that right away from them? Why should we take away from people who genuinely want to purchase premium bonds in £10 units the opportunity to do so for their sons or grandsons, or even for themselves? The Treasury is using a hammer to crack a nut by taking away from people the opportunity to buy £10 premium bonds. The Government should think again.
      6 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McKay: No. To give the hon. Gentleman his due, financially his arguments are right but morally he is wrong. The Government are saying to ordinary people, "We shall tell you where to put your money." I would not have the arrogance or the cheek to tell people what they should do with their money.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McKay: No.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not been a Member of Parliament all that long, but am I not right in thinking that a convention of the House is that when one hon. Member refers persistently and critically to another hon. Member he should allow the hon. Member to whom he has referred to reply?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not so far heard anything that is out of order.
      Mr. McKay: If I sat down whenever I criticised or was sarcastic about Conservative Members, I should not be on my feet for very long.
      The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) is right as regards finance but morally he is wrong as regards the attitude that is being taken towards the £10
      844
      premium bond. We want to give little people the chance to do exactly what they want. However, the Government are steamrollering them into the ground. All that they want to do is to buy £10 premium bonds.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not agree that for one hon. Member to be accused three times in a speech by another hon. Member of being morally wrong—I repeat morally wrong —is serious and deserves the right of reply?
      Mr. McKay: Have you ever had the feeling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of being harassed? I feel that I am being harassed and steamrollered. About 25,000 people sent me here to represent them and to act as the voice of ordinary people. I shall continue to do that. Small savers in my constituency have asked me to put their point of view, and I intend to do so. The Government ought to have more on their mind than worries about the £10 premium bond.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): This has been a fascinating debate, not least because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) pointed out, it has told us about the Opposition's priorities and the general satisfaction that they manifestly felt for the bulk of the contents of the Finance Bill. That is why they have given priority to the precise means by which we make announcements about changes to the value of premium bonds.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) began his speech in a statesmanlike fashion by spelling out the history of premium bonds. I shall not, therefore, have to repeat it now, although it may be necessary later to recapitulate their history. The present position has scarcely been mentioned by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman—that the Government are repaying debt rather than borrowing, net, from the public. In such circumstances, it is appropriate for the Government to reconsider their public finance priorities.
      Our national savings priorities should be to improve the quality of the borrowing and the way in which we finance debt. That means relying increasingly, where we can, on committed long-term savings rather than on extremely liquid instruments that can instantly be withdrawn, or withdrawn at little cost or loss to the saver, and that therefore are more likely to increase the liquidity of the economy and the level of consumer spending in the economy.
      Mr. Chris Smith: If the Economic Secretary is worried about the instant withdrawal of premium bond holdings during the last 20 years, is he able to say whether the pattern has fluctuated during that period?
      Mr. Lilley: I cannot do that. However, £300 million was put into premium bonds last year and £134 million was withdrawn. As well as coming in, money goes out. Every premium bond holder has a legal right instantly to withdraw his money. That is what determines the quality of the saving. One can never be sure that the money will not be withdrawn in certain circumstances in large amounts by large numbers of people.
      Dr. Moonie: Is the Economic Secretary able to tell me what proportion of the 134 million was withdrawn due to the death of the holders of premium bonds?
      Mr. Lilley: I regret that 1 am unable to give that information to the hon. Gentleman. If I find any interesting information during the debate, I shall pass it on to him.
      It cannot be disputed that instant access can be had to this money. That has always been a feature of premium bonds and the advertisements refer to it. That must be one of the attractions of premium bonds. A considerable number of people have had small quantities of premium bonds given to them, or have bought small quantities, and have then lost the certificates. We cannot base Government finances on the hope that people will lose their certificates.
      Mr. James Couchman: My hon. Friend says that money is put into and goes out of premium bonds at short intervals. Is he able to tell me the average length of holding of a premium bond? I presume that he is basing much of his argument on the volatility of this form of saving to justify his case.
      Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that if during the brief period that I have been speaking I have already managed to mislead my hon. Friend. 1 have not said that it is highly volatile. I have said that it is highly liquid, in that everyone has the right to withdraw his money, a right that is not enjoyed with certain other assets. In the management of the Government's debt we are particularly concentrating on encouraging an increasing amount of money to be permanently, or at least for the longer term, committed to savings rather than to easy and ready access. We are not basing it on a particular analysis of the statistical habits of savers. Experience shows that, although money can apparently be stuck in particular forms of saving for quite a long time, there can be considerable outflows in general extension rate money. Our first priority is to improve the quality of the Government's debt. The second must be to reduce the costs. As a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), have pointed out, it costs about £2 per transaction, regardless of the amount of money that is put into premium bonds. Consequently, that must be taken into account when considering the minimum amount that people should be permitted to invest or save in that form.
      I have said in the past that only some 12 per cent. of the money raised is in amounts of £ 100 or less. The Opposition have made great play of that and have suggested that I was trying to cover up the fact that about 80 per cent. of the number of deposits is in sums of less than £100. But that is precisely the point. The cost is roughly the same whatever the amount, so 80 per cent. of the cost raises only 12 per cent. of the money. That should not pass without notice by the Department for National Savings and we have duly taken it into account in reaching the decision to raise the minimum amount that anyone can invest in National Savings.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked whether administrative costs overall were very low. He gave the figure of some 1.1 per cent. of the gross amount invested in premium bonds as the costs every year. That figure is roughly correct, but it is 1.1 per cent. of the total stock invested, not of the amount going in each year. He mentioned the 1,300 staff employed by the Department for National Savings, but quite a lot of additional staff accounting for quite a lot of the costs are employed by Girobank, providing the transaction facilities which
      846
      represent a high proportion of the total estimated cost of some £2 per investment. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the 1·1 per cent. was low compared with unit trusts and other investment media. It strikes me as a not abnormal figure for managing investments. I have seen higher and lower in the private sector. It is only right that the Department for National Savings should be seeking constantly to minimise its costs consistent with providing a decent and fair service.
      The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) asked me to give a comparison of the administrative costs of national savings products. I happily do so. The costs for ordinary accounts are on the high side—about 3 per cent. of the amount invested every year. On the other hand, the costs for savings certificates are at the low end of the scale —only about 0·5 per cent.—and likewise for income bonds. The figure for premium bonds is 1·1 per cent. and for investment accounts it is roughly 2 per cent. So premium bonds are roughly in the middle of the spectrum of the Department for National Savings' costs.
      There are plenty of opportunities available to small savers to save their money instead of premium bonds if they do not wish to accumulate £100 before putting money into premium bonds. Those opportunities are provided by the Department for National Savings and in the private sector. There are opportunities for a higher yield, less risk and a better quality in other Department for National Savings products. To mention just one within the Department for National Savings' range of products, amounts as small as £5 can be deposited in investment accounts where the gross rate of interest is 10·75 per cent. There are similar opportunities in building societies, Girobank and so on.
      Why do the Opposition believe that there should be made available to small savers in particular a form of savings which is risky, which they have described as gambling or a flutter, when Parliament, in its wisdom, has always seen fit to forbid the private sector to provide any comparable product?
      6.15 pm
      We have thought it wrong that any private hank, building society or other institution should make available to the general public—large or small investor—any opportunity to invest their money and flutter in the interest that money yields. Are the Opposition demanding that that parliamentary restriction, that prohibition on gambling in interest and offering forms of saving and investment where the investor gambles on whether he will receive any interest, should be available in the private sector? Are they asking us to liberalise the private sector to increase those opportunities? I give way to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, if he wishes to reply, before giving way to his more daring colleague.
      Dr. Moonie: The Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends have already provided investors with that prospect in the private sector, in Barlow Clowes, for example.
      Mr. Lilley: I shall not comment on Barlow Clowes, but we go to great lengths to ensure the safety of individuals' investments in the private sector. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish that to continue. We do not want unnecessary and unwarranted risks to be run by large or small investors, but I still await an answer to my straight question. If it is such a good thing, why do the Opposition still support the parliamentary prohibition on anyone in

      847
      the private sector offering that facility to replace the element of it which is being withdrawn by the public sector? I have received no reply, so I must note the inconsistency in the Opposition's argument.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend has set out a sensible case in the most compelling fashion. Does he agree that it is surprising to hear the Opposition advancing specifically the view that financial rationality is fine and desirable when applied to the investments and portfolios of large investors, but somehow does not apply to the small guy? It is particularly shocking to hear that line of argument advanced by what used to be regarded as the party of the people.
      Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I am not quite sure that any of us thought of the Opposition as the party of the people. They have demonstrated a lack of concern in putting forward that argument today about the security, safety, riskiness and yield of small savings by the least well-off savers with the least amount of money available to put at risk.
      Dr. Moonie: What is insecure about premium bonds?
      Mr. Lilley: The prospect of not getting any return on one's money—that is insecure, and it is the very nature of the asset.
      That brings me to risk. In Committee I enunciated with no great clarity the law of large numbers, as I termed it and thought that it was generally known, to the effect that if one invests a lot of money in a risky product such as premium bonds the likely yield has less deviation from the average than if one invests only a small amount. That was disputed by several Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield stated the position extremely clearly, both in the beginning of his speech, when he put it pithily, and in the numerical examples that he gave of how a large investor will receive a regular series of returns whereas a small investor may receive nothing or a large amount.
      Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister is still missing the point on premium bonds. The majority of people I know who have premium bonds bought for them or who buy them themselves only keep them for a short period. Even if they have not won and accepting that they have lost interest, they receive a lump sum which they can invest somewhere else. That is the magic of it. That is what people were encouraged to do.
      Mr. Lilley: I will not dispute for an instant what the hon. Gentleman says, although he has blown a torpedo through the point that his hon. Friends were making because they said that the money was never withdrawn or was held for a long period. He is saying that in his and his constituents' experiences the money is withdrawn after a short period.
      Dr. Moonie: The Minister cannot tell us whether bonds are held for a long period or not because he does not have that information. However, let us go back to the mythical law of large numbers. I stated clearly that no statistician would disagree that the more bonds held, the greater the chance of winning. However, the amount added for each
      848
      additional bond is the same. There is no magical way in which the probability increases geometrically with a larger holding.
      Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the mythical law of large numbers and I saw his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who is a distinguished mathematician and probably more so than any other hon. Member in the Chamber and certainly more so than myself, flinch at that reference. The law of large numbers is not a political law in dispute in the House, but part of the way creation has been made. If one has £10,000, the average return each year will differ from the 6+ per cent. average across all premium bonds. The deviation from that average will be smaller than for the little chap who has only £10 or £100. That is the point I was making. If one has only £10, it is all or nothing. For many years there is no return at all, but after 116 years my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is confident of getting a return. That is what I call a high degree of risk. My hon. Friend may die before then, although I have equal confidence with him in the ability of the National Health Service to keep him alive for that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made it clear that if one has £10,000 one can expect a prize most months, so the return most years will average roughly 6 per cent. One would not have to wait 150 years before seeing that average achieved.
      That is the reason why we do not think that it is a form of investment for the very small investor, investing small amounts which may represent quite a high proportion of savings, that we should go out of our way to encourage and facilitate even to the extent of implicitly subsidising small investors. Those investors are imposing the greatest costs on the system. We do not, therefore, find the Opposition's argument convincing.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked why, if premium bonds were such a bad investment, we encouraged people to do more rather than less of such saving. At first sight, he has posed a convincing little paradox. However, there are two points to take into account. First, the return to different investors depends on their tax position. The person who pays no tax will receive only 6½ per cent. on average over the investment, which is the pool that is put aside. Obviously, such an investor could receive more if he invested in a gross product—such as investment bonds which, as I mentioned, provide 10¾ per cent. and on which he would pay no tax. A basic rate taxpayer would get that amount less 25 per cent., which is still more than premium bonds provide. For high rate taxpayers, after paying 40 per cent., 6½ per cent. is not too bad a return. For the high yield taxpayers, it is more attractive—that is why we put an upper limit of ·10,000 on the amount put in. We should not make unlimited tax-free investment opportunities available to the higher rate taxpayer. For the basic and higher rate taxpayers, premium bonds are more attractive than for non-taxpayers and, typically, non-taxpayers are able to put in only very small amounts.
      Secondly, the risk in large numbers is less, as I have already said. Anyone putting in a reasonably large amount receives a more guaranteed average amount back over a period of years than a person who puts in a little. The large investor, of course, is better able to look after himself and less a matter of concern for Government than the small, least sophisticated investors. That is why we are happy to

      849
      let the bigger investors, who make a reasonable return at reduced risk and at lowest cost to the Government, put in money, rather than encouraging small investors, who are making an inadequate return in respect of their tax position. running a higher risk and imposing the greatest cost on Government. That is a consistent view.
      One issue raised in the course of general discussion in the country as a whole is whether we are impeding syndicates from operating and preventing groups of people getting together, as it appears that they have done in various parts of the country, to put in £1 or £10 per week, pooling the risk and sharing the prizes. The Department for National Savings has never given any recognition to unofficial syndicates and makes it clear to any who inquire about running a syndicate that it recognises only the registered holder of the bonds—the individual in whose name they are bought—as sole owner. Nevertheless, the department is well aware that many such syndicates exist and it has never prevented individuals from buying premium bonds on a syndicate's behalf. If members of syndicates are keen to continue to buy premium bonds, I can only suggest that they save up to £100 for each purchase, but for many syndicates that would mean making less frequent purchases, although they could continue to operate.
      The Opposition also made an important point about encouraging savings. They said that surely it was important to encourage saving and that surely we wanted to see more personal saving in the economy as a whole. We do indeed, but we are in the happy position where it is not the Government who need to borrow those savings. We want to see savings available to finance the investment boom that industry is currently enjoying. That is why in the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated his fiscal incentives on improving the private equity plans to encourage savers to put savings directly into investments in British industry. That is where such savings are needed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. We need savings, yes —but Government borrowing, no.
      If the Government were to boost the amount put into premium bonds, given their requirement to run up a public sector debt repayment of some £14 billion this year, the more they draw in from there, the more they would have to repay of other forms of saving. It would be absurd for us to encourage a lower quality of saving only to find ourselves forced to repay higher quality forms of saving. That cannot be right and would not be sensible. I cannot think that the Opposition have thought the matter through.
      The Opposition's attitude to premium bonds has changed dramatically. When the scheme was first introduced, back in 1956, the then Leader of the Labour party, who is now Lord Wilson of Huyton, talked of Britain's strength, freedom and solvency depending on the proceeds of a squalid raffle. James Simmons said that the Labour party had been built up by appeals to the ideals and high aspirations of our people, and that premium bonds were the very opposite of the Socialist principle of putting service before self. Premium bonds were described as a cheapjack idea, and the Chancellor was urged by Dr. Horace King to reconsider.
      Mr. George Howarth: The Minister quoted Harold Wilson, who represented part of my constituency at one time. He was wrong on two counts.
      850
      First, Harold Wilson was not the Leader of the Labour party in 1956 and, secondly, he is Lord Wilson of Rievaulx.
      Mr. Lilley: I apologise to the House for my two errors. However, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was wrong far more frequently than I have ever been, and his views as expressed then were in conflict with the views of the Opposition today. I can only suggest that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) explains this great volte face and tells us why what was described as "a squalid raffle" is now so important that it should be made available to those who are the least well-off, the least sophisticated, have the least tax advantage in taking part and who cost most to the Exchequer if they invest their funds in this way. I cannot believe that there is a satisfactory answer to these questions and I therefore ask the House to reject the new clause.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Chris Smith: Nothing could demonstrate more clearly Conservative Members' sense of priorities and the sort of world in which they live than the remarks of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who said that this was a small and trivial matter, and of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who said that this was a tertiary issue. We are talking about a matter that is of interest to the 24 million holders of premium bonds. This matter is far more important to most of them than the entire contents of the rest of the Finance Bill put together. If the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding wants to find tertiary issues, he need only open the Bill at virtually any page. He will find tertiary issues aplenty in clause after clause of a Bill that is largely composed of such issues. Premium bonds are not a tertiary issue for the many hundreds of thousands of people who are extremely concerned about their future ability to buy premium bonds in quantities that they can afford.
      That is the issue at stake in the new clause and Opposition Members make no apologies for introducing it because it deals with a matter of great concern to many ordinary people who have never been, who never will be and who never aspire to be directors of Morgan Grenfell but who are concerned about their ability to do what they want with their money. Those are the people for whom we speak and it is on their behalf that we have tabled the new clause.
      Mr. Tim Smith: If Lord Wilson was right to describe premium bonds as "a squalid raffle," why has the price of the tickets become a moral issue for the Opposition?
      Mr. Smith: We are talking about individuals' ability to choose what to do with their savings. That is the issue at stake, and I shall amplify that in a moment.
      I want to deal with the points of substance that the Economic Secretary raised. I strongly disagree with him about syndicates. Many people get together in informal clubs—usually at the workplace—to contribute a small amount each week towards the joint purchase of premium bonds which are then allocated to the individuals in the club or syndicate. That is a common form of saving and it is very popular. The change that the Government are making acts powerfully against those people's interests, because at a contribution of, say, £1 a week it will now take a long time for each member of such as syndicate to be

      851
      entitled to receive a premium bond for his weekly contribution. What is possible now on a relatively short timescale will become much more difficult and take much longer in future.
      The principal argument that the Economic Secretary advanced was that he wanted to increase the quality of the Government's debt. He said that the important thing was for the Government to rely for their finances on long-term savings and on money that could not be withdrawn instantly. Yet when we challenged the Economic Secretary about the pattern of withdrawals and accruals to the premium bond account over a period he was unable to give us an answer about the long-term flow and long-term stability of premium bond funds. That is the key. Of course, potentially, premium bonds can be withdrawn instantly. Potentially, every single premium bond held could be withdrawn tomorrow if the holders of premium bonds so wished. But that has never happened and it is very unlikely to happen. It is by the overall pattern over a period that we must judge the stability of the financing available to the Government through this form of savings.
      The Economic Secretary also said that there were plenty of other opportunities available to small savers and that by removing the possibility of purchasing premium bonds in relatively small amounts the Government were not removing the possibility of other forms of saving, which the Economic Secretary said, somewhat implausibly, provided a higher yield with less risk. Of course, other forms of small saving present less of a risk, but the potential yield from a premium bond investment—especially the yield from a small premium bond investment —is very great. That is precisely why many people want to purchase premium bonds even if it is only on a small scale.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) spoke about his mother-in-law, who he said had won two or three times on a holding of less than £17. My hon. Friend described precisely the sort of opportunity of which those who purchase premium bonds seek to avail themselves. People do not purchase premium bonds because they know that they will get a regular return. They do so because they believe that they might, at some stage in the future, turn lucky and win big. That is why people want to save by means of premium bond purchases. The opportunity—the potential—that premium bonds offer them is completely different from that offered by other more regular and more guaranteed forms of saving.
      By introducing the change, the Government are removing that opportunity from small savers. The Government are fond of lecturing us about choice and the need for customers to be able to decide for themselves what to do with their money. Here is an opportunity for the Government to allow people who do not have £100 to invest in premium bonds but who want to purchase some none the less because of the opportunity that it gives them to do so. Here is the Government's chance to restore the position that they changed on 1 July and make available to small savers the chance to buy premium bonds in the way that they wish. The Government have removed that opportunity from them. We wish to restore it to them.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 266.

      Division No. 292]

      [6.39 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Alton, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Anderson, Donald

      Grocott, Bruce

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hardy, Peter

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Haynes, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Home Robertson, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Battle, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Beith, A. J.

      Howells, Geraint

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hoyle, Doug

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

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Blair, Tony

      Illsley, Eric

      Blunkett, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Boyes, Roland

      Janner, Greville

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jones, Barry (Alyn &Deeside)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Buckley, George J.

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Caborn, Richard

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lambie, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lamond, James

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Livsey, Richard

      Cartwright, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McAllion, John

      Clay, Bob

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clelland, David

      McCartney, Ian

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McFall, John

      Coleman, Donald

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McKelvey, William

      Cousins, Jim

      McLeish, Henry

      Cox, Tom

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Cummings, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Marek, Dr John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &Bute)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eastham, Ken

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morley, Elliott

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mullin, Chris

      Flannery, Martin

      Murphy, Paul

      Flynn, Paul

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      O'Brien, William

      Foster, Derek

      O'Neill, Martin

      Foulkes, George

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fyfe, Maria

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Patchett, Terry

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Pendry, Tom

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Prescott, John

      Gould, Bryan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Graham, Thomas

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      853

      Radice, Giles

      Spearing, Nigel

      Randall, Stuart

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Redmond, Martin

      Stott, Roger

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Straw, Jack

      Reid, Dr John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Richardson, Jo

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Turner, Dennis

      Robertson, George

      Vaz, Keith

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wall, Pat

      Rogers, Allan

      Wallace, James

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wilson, Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Worthington, Tony

      Short, Clare

      Wray, Jimmy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

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

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Mr. Jimmy Dunachie.

      Soley, Clive

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Alexander, Richard

      Colvin, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Allason, Rupert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Amos, Alan

      Couchman, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cran, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Critchley, Julian

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Curry, David

      Atkins, Robert

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

      Atkinson, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Day, Stephen

      Batiste, Spencer

      Devlin, Tim

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dicks, Terry

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dover, Den

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dunn, Bob

      Body, Sir Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Boswell, Tim

      Evennett, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Fallon, Michael

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Favell, Tony

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bowis, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forman, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bright, Graham

      Forth, Eric

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

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Franks, Cecil

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Freeman, Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Burns, Simon

      Fry, Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Gale, Roger

      Butcher, John

      Gardiner, George

      Butler, Chris

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Cash, William

      Gow, Ian

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Chope, Christopher

      Gregory, Conal

      Churchill, Mr

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

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

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      854

      Hague, William

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hannam, John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

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

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Harris, David

      Mudd, David

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Neubert, Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heddle, John

      Norris, Steve

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hill, James

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hind, Kenneth

      Page, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Paice, James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howard, Michael

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Pawsey, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irvine, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Irving, Charles

      Price, Sir David

      Jack, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Jackson, Robert

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Janman, Tim

      Redwood, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Riddick, Graham

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rost, Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shelton, Sir William

      Key, Robert

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Kilfedder, James

      Shepherd. Colin (Hereford)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knapman, Roger

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knowles, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Knox, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lang, Ian

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Latham, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sumberg, David

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Lightbown, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Thome, Neil

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Lord, Michael

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Tredinnick, David

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Trippier, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Madel, David

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Mans, Keith

      Walden, George

      Maples, John

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Marland, Paul

      Waller, Gary

      Marlow, Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Watts, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Mates, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Whitney, Ray

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Wilshire, David

      Mills, Iain

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wood, Timothy

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      855

      Yeo, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. David Maclean and

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I turn to you as custodian of the rules of this House. Until this evening I had been under the impression that any hon. Member passing through the Division lobbies had to do so bareheaded. However, this evening an hon. Member passing through the Noes Lobby was wearing headgear. I was able to ascertain the identity of that hon. Member and can vouch for the fact that that hon. Member had every right to be in that Lobby. Indeed, had the hon. Lady been in any other Lobby, that would have been an even greater surprise to me. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in your position as custodian of the rules, to admonish the Government Whips and to ask them to educate their Members about the proper behaviour of this place.
      Mr. Speaker: I am unaware of any rule that says that an hon. Member should not vote with a hat on. In any event, the fact that an hon. Member casts a vote with or without a hat does not invalidate it.

    New Clause 7

      COMPUTATION OF PROFITS (No. I)
      '(1) In computing the amount of profits or gains to be charged under Case I of Schedule D of a bank carrying on a bona fide banking business in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the provisions of section 74(j) of the ICTA 1988 any debts falling within (2) shall be deductible provided that the provisions of subsection (3) are fulfilled.

      (2) Bad debts fall within this subsection if they arise in respect of lending to third world countries, their governments, government institutions or enterprises operating in such overseas territories comprising sovereign risks, and the Board shall issue regulations specifying the countries, institutions and enterprises treated from time to time as falling within this subsection.

      (3) The requirements of this subsection are fulfilled if debts which are considered to be bad and for which a deduction is claimed are formally written off, waived or otherwise extinguished such that they are no longer repayable by the debtor.

      (4) Subsection (3) shall operate in respect of debts which are partly claimed as bad as though that past debt were a separate debt.'.—[Mr Nicholas Brown.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Some Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), criticised the last new clause on the grounds of its scope. Although it touched the lives of about 24 million of our fellow citizens, they felt that it was a small matter. The same charge cannot possibly be levelled at new clause 7, which seeks to address the problem of Third world debt—
      7 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: As the hon. Gentleman has explicitly referred to me, I should like to correct his misapprehension. I do not think that he could have been following the previous debate with any attention.
      The new clause did not affect the lives of 24 million people who may hold premium bonds. It merely affected the lives of those who wish to purchase premium bonds in
      856
      future in individual amounts of less than £100. There is a clear distinction. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman failed to notice it.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We have finished the last debate; let us get on with the next one.
      Mr. Brown: Quite so, Mr. Speaker. If my attention wandered in the last debate while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I dare say that I was not alone in that.
      This debate relates to Third world debt. The proposition is specifically aimed at relating the tax deductions that First world banks seek from their Governments to debt forgiveness in the Third world. We believe that that is in line with the thinking behind the Brady plan, which aims at reducing existing loans to the Third world, if not an outright tax forgiveness. The difference between our proposition and the Brady proposal is best summed up as follows: the Brady plan relies on the voluntary co-operation of the private sector, whereas our proposals directly link tax concessions to willingness to forgive debt in the Third world.
      The problem that we are seeking to deal with is vast and has been dramatically exacerbated by the recent fall in the value of Third world commodity sales. For example, debt service ratios for the African continent now exceed 50 per cent. of that continent's export income. The total current account deficit of the African region trebled between 1985 and 1986, with deteriorating terms of trade, low economic growth and outward interest payments far in excess of inward investment.
      The problem is illustrated by countries such as Zambia, where the infant mortality rate has doubled since 1980 because of malnutrition. It is also reflected in countries such as Brazil, in which the infant mortality rate fell steadily until about 1980, when the debt crisis hit. Now 40,000 children die each year in that country. About 86 million Brazilians are on the minimum calorie intake, of whom about 30 million receive less than 1,600 calories per day. Yet Brazil is the sixth largest exporter of foodstuffs in the world. It is a disgrace that old debt servicing has meant a transfer of wealth from the south to the north.
      The problem in the poorest part of the Third world seems self-perpetuating. Those to whom the money is owed put forward a range of solutions. The first solution which is attractive to them is tax relief from First world Governments for a problem into which they got themselves. When forced to look at other potential solutions they consider rescheduling of debt, bond conversion schemes and even further loans to perpetuate the debt interest cycle.
      The financial institutions of the First world are reluctant to consider debt forgiveness. When they do, they want to consider it in exchange for something. They will consider just about any mechanism apart from outright default. In these difficult circumstances for the Third world, it reflects no credit on the Government of the United Kingdom that the volume of the British aid budget has been dramatically reduced. Britain's contribution during these troubled times has been to ensure that the amount that we spend on aid fell in real terms by more than a third between 1979 and 1987. That decrease has been marked in Africa, for which over the same period real aid has fallen by 26·5 per cent. As a percentage of our gross national product, overseas aid has steadily fallen during the 1980s to a pitiful 0·28 per cent. of GNP in 1987. In

      857
      those circumstances, it is no wonder that our Government lag far behind even that of the United States in exploring new and constructive solutions to one of the most intractable problems in the world.
      The sums involved are substantial, although banks are naturally shy of revealing the total sums that they regard as bad debt. In 1987, Barclays sought to offset about £713 million against tax because of bad debt to the Third world. The National Westminster bank offset a similar amount —£562 million; the Midland offset £1,016 million, and Lloyds, £1,323 million. As a proportion of these banks' total Third world debt we note that Barclays wrote off about 26 per cent. in 1987, National Westminster 23 per cent., the Midland about 25 per cent. and Lloyds about 34 per cent. In other words, the major banking institutions of this country are moving at a fair pace to offset as irrecoverable debts owed to them by the Third world against their tax obligations to the Governments of the First world. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the amount written off globally to Third world countries as bad debt between 1985 and 1988 was $9 billion. That includes only money written off to the 15 most indebted countries, calculated by debt service ratio.
      Our contention is that because First world nations bear a public cost because of the private sector banks' irrecoverable debt to the Third world, the public interest should be represented in the way in which the debts are written off against tax. In theory, at any rate, those written off debts constitute a large cost for First world taxpayers. Had those debts not been written off, the major banks' tax liability would have been substantial and would have provided welcome additional income for the Exchequer. Whether that would have happened in practice may be open to question, but that does not undermine the strength of our case. It is surely in the public interest that the poorest countries in the world, crippled with interest payments and a debt burden that they can never meet, are brought back into the world economy in a way that ensures stability and holds out the prospect for real economic growth and steadily increased standards of living.
      As these written-off debts have been offset against tax liability, it is equitable that the British taxpayer should insist that the debt be truly written off. That has the obvious advantage of relieving Third world countries even of the theoretical burden of repayment. In short, this is tax relief for debt forgiveness.
      It is no part of our case that the new clause should have universal applications. The scope for tax avoidance on a large scale is all too evident. The banks are large and powerful and some Third world nation states are small and vulnerable. We propose a remedy to deal with the present problem. We are not seeking to encourage an extension of the present difficulties or to set up a vast new tax avoidance industry for a Keith committee to deal with in the early 1990s.
      The Third world debt problem was clearly not planned to emerge in the way in which it has emerged, and it is in nobody's interest that it should continue. Our remedy is designed to deal with the existing problem. To avoid creating new problems, it may be necessary to set a time limit on the operation of the relief or on the circumstances under which it may be made available. It may be necessary to set that down more specifically in the resolution. Nevertheless, it is the principle that is important. No matter how reluctant the banks, and probably the citizenry
      858
      of this country, may be to accept the principle of debt forgiveness, it appears that of all the options open to First world Governments today, and of all the different machanisms that have been suggested for rescheduling, converting into bonds or dealing with the world debt crisis in some other way, by far and away the most effective mechanism is to offset the tax concessions that have been made to the banks against debt forgiveness, and to eradicate at least the current problem once and for all.
      Mr. John Battle: I remember some time ago seeing a cartoon that depicted a Mexican peasant, who was faced with a well-dressed American. What was being offered to that Mexican peasant by the right hand of the well-dressed American was a teaspoon on which was written the word "aid". The problem was that the left hand of that well dressed American held that peasant by the windpipe and on the arm was emblazoned the word "trade". That cartoon summed up the position. A teaspoon of aid is offered, but by and large the rich world has the Third world by the windpipe in terms of trade relations. Trade terms are far more favourable to the First world than to the Third world. In recent years it has become clear that trade is not necessarily only in goods but is in invisibles, such as financial exchange. Such trading has increased in prominence in world trade relations.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, if we were just to focus on what is in that teaspoon of aid for a few moments and considered our Government's record in the past 10 years, we would find that there has been a dramatic reduction in the volume of Britain's aid contribution in real terms and as a proportion of gross national product. As my hon. Friend cited, it was only in January in a written answer in Hansard that the Government admitted that aid in Africa had dropped by 26 per cent. over the period from 1979 to 1987. Yet this year the Treasury was able to announce that there was a surplus of £15 billion. One month after that answer on Africa the Prime Minister announced:
      "We now have a higher standard of living than we have ever known. We have a great budget surplus."—[Official Report, 28 February 1989; Vol. 148, c. 154–55.]
      I am tempted to set against that another comment that she made in a contribution to a book which was called "Towards One World?" which contained international responses to the Brandt report published some years ago. The Prime Minister said:
      "It is morally right that those who can should help the poorer countries to help themselves."
      The positive strategy of doing that would be one of debt remission, and that would be a contribution that British commercial interests could well afford.
      More recently in 1988, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended that
      "the aid budget should increase in line with the nation's increasing wealth."
      That has not happened, but in the meantime the real problem of trade—the stranglehold of the windpipe—has continued. We are not talking in this debate about industrial capital exchange that is tied up with factories —such as the provision of the processes of production, or agricultural development or provision of infrastructure —but about financial capital. That is the selling of money and turning a profit by charging interest.
      I was interested to hear the phrase "recommending debt forgiveness". I am tempted to suggest that we should talk about debt remission, because forgiveness suggests that

      859
      there is moral responsibility on the borrower only—it is the borrower who has sinned rather than its being the relationship between the lender and the borrower that is wrong. It is interesting that the charging of interest—that form of financial trade—was frowned upon by many traditions, whether Greek, Jewish or Christian, right through into the 16th century, as being usury. The problem for the borrowers is obviously how they will get the money to pay back the high interest that they promised to pay. In recent times often the answer from the bank has been to lend them more money at even higher rates. In practice, that has absorbed the money that those countries have raised from their agricultural and industrial production.
      7.15 pm
      On 5 April, I tabled a question on the Brazilian debt to the Foreign Secretary. I was informed that Brazilian debt was to be rescheduled over 20 years at interest rate charges of Libor plus 13 to 16 per cent. That would be an extraordinary way of helping Brazil with its debts, because it would put on it an additional burden.
      In that answer I was also referred to table 15 of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, which lists all the Third world debts to the United Kingdom-registered monetary sector institutions and all their branches and subsidiaries. I recommend that hon. Members read that bulletin, because it shows that in Britain banks have some £14 billion owed to them by the least-developed countries. Britain is the world's largest debt holder after the United States of America.
      One of the contributors to the World Bank report, which was published just a month ago, was the editor of The Economist. In a review of the World Bank report in The Economist, he said:
      "Because of this lack of savings, they"—
      Third world countries—
      "need foreign capital to build up their productive investment. In principle, that sounds fine. It makes economic sense for a poor country with good growth potential to borrow abroad. But foreign borrowing can be risky. In the 1980s many poor countries ran into crippling debt troubles because they had borrowed too much in earlier years, and because exchange rates and interest rates moved against them."
      That is the context in which Third world countries have been borrowing.
      The IMF in September 1987 issued a statement celebrating five successive years of growth in the world's economies, but I would have to say that that was unequal development and growth, because in that same period there was an escalation of the debt crisis wreaking havoc on the economies of the debtor nations. In other words, I would suggest that the successes of the industrialised countries have come about on the backs of the developing ones, whose incomes in real terms have declined by 30 per cent. in that period.
      The injustice is that we now have a world in which the poorest countries are subsidising the wealth of the richest countries. That may seem a far cry from representing our constituents in Britain, but if we apply it a little more particularly, it appears that the credit card boom in Britain today is built on the backs of the interest repayments to our banks by the Third world countries. All their foreign
      860
      exchange is being used to service those debts. The revenue that they earn on export sales has to be returned to United Kingdom and United States banks.
      Since 1982 the poorer countries of the south have regularly transferred in excess of $30 billion to their rich creditors in America and Britain. Last year that transfer rose to $43 billion. In other words, it absorbed more than 5 per cent. of the entire gross domestic product of some of the world's most impoverished countries. Brazil, which owes $110 billion in foreign debts, is the world's largest debtor nation after the United States. Brazil pays 10 per cent. of its gross national product in interest on its debts. We must ask how on earth Brazil can restructure its economy, agriculture and industry, so that it can tackle issues such as the wasting of its resources by selling wood from its rain forests, which Brazil must do to enjoy the export earnings that will allow it to repay its debts to banks in Britain and America.
      Mexico's foreign debt totals more than $100 billion, or 25 per cent. of its gross domestic product, yet Mexicans earn an average of less than one dollar per hour. They would have to work for 100 billion human life hours to repay Mexico's debt to the rich world. Developing countries have managed to sustain their debt repayments only by cutting imports, squeezing consumption and cutting back on public expenditure. Consequently, per capita income in Latin America has fallen by 10 per cent. since 1982 and investment has collapsed. Michael Manley commented some time ago that for a developing country to make progress in such conditions is like trying to climb up an escalator that is moving down.
      The price of adjusting to the debt crisis has been borne primarily by the poor, which is reflected by increasing levels of poverty, malnutrition and infant mortality. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East referred to the 40,000 children who die each year in Brazil. In reality, they are paying Brazil's debt repayments with their shortened lives. Commodity prices have dropped dramatically in the last decade. In the past few days, the failure to settle the international coffee agreement has caused the value of coffee crops to fall daily. Countries that depend on such crops suffer not only a lack of export earnings and of economic growth but enormous debt burdens. Argentina owes about $35 billion to commercial banks and has paid about $100 million in interest since April of last year. Yet Argentina is already $3 billion in arrears with its interest payments.
      One of the privileges of being a Member of Parliament is that one meets representatives of many other parliaments. Recently, I had the honour to meet visitors from Ecuador, who explained that that country could not repay its debt interest because Ecuador is dependent largely on its oil revenues to do so, and they asked how many British Members of Parliament knew that the recent earthquake in Ecuador broke oil pipelines and reduced the country's revenue. Ecuador is now two years behind in repaying its $6 billion debt. Peru has made no repayments since 1985 and has a $5 billion debt.
      Until recently, of the Latin American countries having the largest dollar debts, Mexico, Colombia and Chile were able to maintain their repayment commitments. However, in the last week the international financial press has reported that Brazil has stopped making its debt repayments on 4 July because it can no longer afford to service it.

      861
      There have been two suggestions for dealing with the Third world's debt problems. The first is rescheduling debts but in practice that only means new loans that will worsen the problem in the long term. The second suggestion is that the countries concerned should default. However, in practice when non-payment occurs, it dries up credit and the countries involved are put on an international credit blacklist so that they cannot make any further progress. Last March, the United States Treasury Secretary, Mr. Nicholas Brady, devised a plan to tackle the debt crisis through a complex programme of so-called voluntary debt relief measures. Banks were urged to exchange existing debts for other assets such as equity in Third world countries or Government bonds at lower interest rates. To sweeten the pill, those bonds were said to be guaranteed by the World Bank and by the International Monetary Fund, to reassure banks that future repayments would be honoured.
      It was envisaged that the World Bank and the IMF would provide Third world Governments with resources to finance the proposed debt equity swaps. In practice, with Third world debt being traded at less than half its value, and with private banks having undertaken massive provisions to cover themselves against losses, it seems absurd that Third world Governments should now be required to meet their past obligations in full. The reality of the situation was dramatically illustrated when, in Argentina recently, the Brady initiative was marked by violent rioting against austerity measures intended to met the IMF's repayment conditions.
      As to the measures taken by the banks to cover themselves against losses, the Financial Times reported this week that the Bank of England is reviewing its credit scoring system for British banks to cushion them against possible loans to debtor countries. Known as the central bank matrix system, it is based on whether the borrower's interest payments are up to date and on whether the country has an IMF programme—and a country that does can score highly on the matrix. The system is also used by the Inland Revenue as a guide to the provision that should he made for tax allowances against such borrowings. The difficulty is that those provisions are too limited, so that proposal has not taken off. The matrix system itself is holding banks back from changing their approach.
      To return to the Brady proposals, the Bush Administration has been concerned for some time to establish a coherent international debt strategy, because the debt crisis is viewed internationally as posing a threat to the United States security interests overseas. The fundamental flaw in the Brady proposals is that they do not tackle the central problem of funding future developments and of securing new lending. Four years ago, the Baker plan was scuppered precisely because of the inability of Governments to persuade commercial banks to provide new funds for future developments. Although one must prevent new loans from being siphoned off to pay interest on previous loans, debt relief alone will not solve the problem. Halting the transfer of resources from the southern to the northern hemisphere does nothing to bring about long-term development.
      At current interest levels, the $70 billion debt reduction proposed by Brady will save developing countries only $2·3 billion per year in repayments. To make a significant impact on the current negative transfer of resources, a realistic strategy of debt remission is needed. It is worth remembering the Monday last October when the stock
      862
      exchange collapsed and $100 billion was wiped off share values. That showed that the concept of debt remission is not an impossibility or an impracticable option. Banks —particularly in Britain—can afford to write off debts.
      In reply to a recent written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that the Third world debt crisis is over for the United Kingdom banks, as the money they have on loan to developing countries is now only one third of what it was five years ago as a proportion of the banks' capital. Loans to highly indebted Third world countries were 65 per cent. of the high street banks' capital last year. In 1984, the figure was 179 per cent. In other words, if all the Third world borrowers defaulted simultaneously, British banks would not be made bankrupt. Therefore, they are in a position to do something about Third world debts. Meanwhile, they refuse new loans to Third world countries.
      In the past year, the Economic Secretary's figure of 65 per cent. could have been reduced to 44 per cent., if allowance is made for the banks' own provisions against bad debts. The figures clearly show that substantial debt reductions can be afforded by British banks.
      John Denham, an international debt expert, wrote in this month's issue of the magazine published by the World Development Movement:
      "Broadly speaking, they"—
      the banks—
      "could waive a third of developing country debt without incurring further losses."
      Meanwhile, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, the burden of foreign debt servicing remains. Argentina alone owes the Midland bank £2·9 billion, Lloyds bank £2·3 billion and Barclays bank £1·2 billion. Despite the Brady proposals, commercial banks have been reluctant to make the necessary concessions to debtor countries, although those banks have been in their healthiest state for years. Even in America, there has been talk of resorting to legislation to force the banks to be more forthcoming.
      Large-scale debt cannot be addressed by suggesting further indebtedness. It requires structural solutions to increase resource flows from the north to the south and to improve the productive capacity of Third world economies. Our new clause provides an incentive to encourage banks to write off their debts to developing countries and contribute positively to enabling Third world countries to move towards sustained growth. The debt crisis cannot be contained by indefinite tinkering and rescheduling of old debts.
      The Brady proposals do not go far enough. If the new clause is accepted, it will enable the Government, at the meeting later this week of the economic summit in Paris, to present a practical example of how countries in the rich world can restore basic justice in relationships between the north and the south.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Tim Smith: I share the concern expressed by Labour Members about the debt burden of Third world countries. There is no doubt that the cost of servicing the debt has become so great that it is often crippling and subsumes a large proportion of the revenue of less developed countries. We should examine every way of securing a situation in which they are relieved of a large part of the cost of servicing their debt.

      863
      I welcome the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I also welcome the initiative taken by Treasury Secretary Brady —to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred, even though he felt that it did not go far enough. Such initiatives are welcome and can help. I understand that we are close to reaching an arrangement to help Mexico, which is one country with large debt burdens hanging over it.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) cited the figure for the four clearing banks in 1987. Not only the clearing banks, but the Export Credits Guarantee Department had to write off a great deal of debt, which will in due course fall directly on the taxpayer. I am not clear precisely how the new clause will help the less developed countries and I am concerned about the underlying taxation principles. I see no justification for treating one category of debtor differently from another.
      For tax purposes, we say that a person can have tax relief if he has a bad debt on his hands and there is no prospect or considerable doubt about the prospect of recovering the debt. It is not sufficient to make a general provision—one must specify the debtors for which one is making the provision. Tax relief is not automatic even then, because the Inland Revenue will consider carefully the provision made. We can take it that the Revenue has done that in the case of the clearing banks, although my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary cannot tell us about the specific position of individual banks because that would breach taxpayer confidentiality. My point is that it does not necessarily follow that, just because a bank makes provision in its accounts, it necessarily gets tax relief.
      I understand, and have considerable sympathy with, the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. Why would it be right to make a distinction between debtors who happen to be less developed countries and all other types of debtor to banks or any other trading concern? What practical help would the new clause give less developed countries?
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I tried to deal with that point towards the end of my speech. I have said that this is a specific measure designed to deal with a specific and unique problem. The hon. Gentleman has asked what help the new clause will give those nations. The answer is that it will free them of the obligation to pay continuing interest on their debt or to repay the capital sum. The debt will be written off, or forgiven. It will no longer exist.
      Mr. Smith: I see. It is a hypothetical position and there is not much point in debating whether it will happen. The assumption is that the banks will adopt the proposals in the new clause, take the tax relief and permanently write off the debt. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman thinks that that will happen if we accept the new clause and that that is the right thing to do.
      Although I have considerable sympathy with much of what has been said, I have doubts about making distinctions between categories of debtors. Unlike the hon. Member for Leeds, West, I believe that anyone who has borrowed money—I do not care who it is—has a moral obligation to repay it. Perhaps it was wrong to lend those countries the money in the first place. If the banks felt that
      864
      there was no prospect of the money ever being repaid, perhaps that was not the right commercial judgment to make, but I should not like the new clause to give the signal that there was no obligation to repay the debt, because that would not be the right signal to give. Although I have considerable sympathy with the motive behind the new clause, I have doubts about whether it would be wise to adopt such a distinction in practice.
      Mr. Beith: There are specific reasons why it is a reasonable and wise proposition that there should be some remission of debt to Third world countries. Much of that reasoning lies in the prospects for any stable economic development of those countries, which are wholly destroyed by the interest rate burden that they are now carrying, and the prospect of a future world financial and trading system in which they can readily participate. It is unrealistic to treat developing countries' debts as though they were the same as the banks' other bad commercial debts at home. We are talking not about individual companies that may have gone or may go bankrupt but about countries and peoples, many of them in grinding poverty.
      What is most alarming about the Third world debt position is that, from the narrow point of view of the western nations, the problem is much less serious than it was, but from the perspective of those living in the countries with the heaviest debt, the problem is as serious as it ever was. The fact that the danger to us seems to be receding suggests that it will be addressed with decreasing urgency. So long as it was seen to be a serious problem for the Western nations and their banks, it was regarded as something about which nations had to get together and worry. I am alarmed that the more it seems that the West no longer has a problem, the less the issue will be addressed when it is still so alarming for those who live in Third world countries.
      The Chancellor said:
      "The danger of a systemic collapse of the banking system has been averted".
      That must be so. There is plenty of evidence to show that the exposure of the banks has been dramatically reduced. Net financial flows to the Third world have fallen from $67 billion in 1982 to $16 billion in 1988. The commercial banks have been substantial beneficiaries of that collapse. Although their cash exposure has increased, their exposure as a percentage of equity has been halved over the same period. We have negative financial flows to the Third world. We have an outflow of funds that is financing the economic development of the western world at the expense of those countries most desperately in need of sustainable development.
      The new clause seeks to deal with the position of the commercial banks, which in the United States and in Britain have already benefited substantially from official sources. Most new lending between 1983 and 1987 was from official sources such as the development banks—for example, the International Monetary Fund—and during that time about one third of the interest payments made by highly indebted countries was covered by new lending. There was an S18 billion public sector subsidy to the banking sector because the new lend was actually paying for the interest on the old loans—certainly 15 per cent. of the interest on loans held by commercial banks.
      That new lend from development banks and other official sources has reduced the banks' share of the

      865
      indebted countries' foreign debt from 67 per cent. to 56 per cent. The percentage involvement by commercial banks in Third world debt has been reduced by substantial public sector intervention. In most creditor countries, the banks have received some sort of tax relief on their provisions against Third world debt, even though the loans have not been cancelled or written down. In some cases, the loans continue to be serviced in full. The commercial banks are emerging reasonably comfortably from what at one time appeared to be a dangerous position. Following considerable public sector aid, the world banking system appears to be capable of surviving all the debt problems. However, the Third world nations and their peoples are still suffering from the enormous burden of interest payments and they have no prospect of debt repayment.
      We should be seeking ways to involve commercial banks, through the public sector, in various forms of debt remission, related—as some inevitably will be—to structural adjustment and changes in policies, as has happened as a result of the IMF's activities. It must be part of the Government's programme of measures to involve the commercial banks more closely in debt remission.
      The new clause is a genuine attempt to achieve that aim. If the Government can suggest a better way, we should be interested to hear about it. What we want to hear today is that the Government are prepared to get together with commercial banks to seek the remission and cancellation of a significant part of the debt burden.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I am rather concerned about the Opposition's evident intellectual muddle in proposing the new clause to the House. It might be useful if I threw a little light on at least three of the Opposition's major confusions. The first confusion forcibly to strike anyone reading the new clause is that of terminology. It suggests that debts
      "for which a deduction is claimed are formally written off, waived or otherwise extinguished such that they are no longer repayable by the debtor."
      The implication is that all three options are either progressions of the same thing or more or less equivalent, yet in reality they are quite different concepts. To write off or write down a loan is to decide, in all prudence, that it is sensible to make a provision because it is likely that all or part of the loan will not be recovered, at least on the terms on which it was originally lent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said, it has been this country's sensible system, where a bank or any other business makes a specific provision that can be justified as the sort of prudential provision that a business should make, that the Inland Revenue accepts that as a reduction in taxable profit.
      That is different from waiving or extinguishing a loan. Waiving means that a claim on the borrower is forgone by the lender. The lender could easily decide to write down a loan and provide against it without that making the slightest difference to the force of his claim on the borrower. That is a vital distinction which is blurred by the clause. Indeed the way that the clause is drafted implies that the draftsman was not even alive to that essential distinction.
      Even more serious than the confusion of terminology is the Opposition's moral confusion. The best example of that was shown by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who objected to the phrase "forgiving debts" on the ground that the implication was that the borrower had
      866
      incurred some moral obligation when he first took out the debt. The hon. Gentleman thought it iniquitous that a borrower should have any moral obligation.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Battle: I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. I objected to the word "forgiveness" because it implied that the moral obligation was only on one side and that no reference was made to the fact that the lender could also have moral obligations, which might include the rate at which he lends money.
      Mr. Davies: Any lender has the considerable obligation of prudence. Where the lender is a bank, the shareholders and depositors of which are the general public, the directors have an important fiduciary responsibility. I do not mind conceding that a number of major banks made serious professional errors in the 1970s in the lending policies that they pursued in the Third world and elsewhere. None of that in any way reduces, and must not be taken to do so, the moral obligation of any borrower— whether a country, a corporation or an individual—that is assumed when the debt is undertaken, a loan agreement signed or a bond issued. It is morally dangerous, as well as potentially carrying the most unfortunate and damaging practical consequences, if there is for one moment any doubt about that fundamental principle.
      Mr. Dennis Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the many millions of people who would be affected by the new clause cannot read confused terminology? They are interested in the way in which they have to lead their lives, and they are living in great poverty and deprivation. The debate is about human beings and about how Britain, as a rich country, can help the poor, struggling countries. What are the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about ways in which we could respond positively to the problems that we both know exist in such countries?
      Mr. Davies: Within the constraints of order, I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points later in my speech.
      If we are at all serious about this matter, the House should accept that it is absolutely fundamental that anyone who takes on a debt incurs a moral obligation to repay it and to conduct his affairs in a way that, as far as is possible, puts him in a position to repay that debt. If we forget that principle we not only do a disservice to lenders, but do a terrible disservice to borrowers because we undermine one of the vital mechanisms by which resources are cycled from savers to borrowers or from surplus countries to deficit countries. The consequences for humanity of undermining or seriously damaging that mechanism, which would happen if we accepted the Opposition's argument, are incalculable.
      That is not the end of my story because a third and important confusion has been displayed today by the Opposition, and that is an economic confusion. It is a confusion in properly identifying the different economic interests.
      The burden of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in support of new clause 7 was that as the taxpayer incurs a cost when banks can reduce their taxable profits by virtue of provisions against bad debts that are accepted by the Inland Revenue, the taxpayer should have some countervailing benefit which would be that the debts

      867
      would be forgiven—to use the phrase which the hon. Member for Leeds, West dislikes. In other words, that implies that there is some conflict of interest between banks and the taxpayer in how those debts are to be treated if they are written down, and whether the claims on the borrowers are waived.
      The Labour party's position is that there is such a conflict of interest. I put it to the House seriously that there is no such conflict of interest, because the taxpayer shares exactly the same interest as the depositor or shareholder of a bank in maintaining the claim. If that claim can ultimately be made good and the debt is ultimately serviced and repaid, not only can the bank write back that amount to profits, but those profits will be taxable and the taxpayer will gain his full due proportionate benefit in due course. There is that fundamental error in the Labour party's position and it is important that the debate should not proceed without its having been identified.
      I am not insensible of the need to think carefully about how we can better structure the capital flows in the world, including the capital flows between the OECD area and the Third world. There is no question but that in contrast with previous periods there was a greater distortion in those capital flows in the 1970s which led to many of the problems with which we live today.
      The period before 1914 was characterised by substantial net capital outflows from the developed countries to what we would now call the Third world—Latin America, Asia, the Russian empire and so on. In contrast to that period there was an extraordinary phenomenon in the 1970s when almost the total sum of capital flows went through the banking market and virtually none went in the form of private debt through the bond market or through the equity market in the form of direct industrial investment or portfolio flows. That was a distorted flow and it means that the Third world has had a distorted portfolio of indebtedness and the OECD countries have a distorted portfolio of Third world assets which is in the interests of neither party.
      What does one do about that.? One creates conditions in which it is possible for deficit countries to exploit other forms of capital, particularly to attract private debt to the bond markets and equity flows in the form of direct investment or portfolio flows. A small number of Third world countries have achieved that. Malaysia and South Korea are pertinent examples. They have not only thrived and prospered—they have been models of economic success—but they have not had the problems to which we are referring today and have not had to write off any of their bank debt.
      The remedy is there. It is important that we make it clear to Third world countries that the solution largely lies in their hands and that if they create the conditions in which those flows are attracted a great deal of the problem will automatically be solved. But there is one thing that we shall not do. We shall not do a good day's work for the Third world, for investors in Britain or for the future prosperity of the globe if we live in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of financial illusions and make-believe which the Labour party currently appears to inhabit.
      Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) made a number of
      868
      references during his remarks to conflicts of interest and other remarks that were relevant to banking. I note from the Register of Members' Interests that the hon. Gentleman is a consultant to Morgan Grenfell, merchant bankers. Would you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the entry in the register in no way lifts the obligation on hon. Members to declare a relevant interest during the course of their remarks? I hope that in future the hon. Gentleman will make clear his direct interest when contributing to debates such as this.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Madam Betty Boothroyd): I confirm that it is for an hon. Member to declare his interests. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) has such an interest to declare he will do so on a future occasion.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I have declared an interest on many occasions, including in Committee. The fact that I was a director of Morgan Grenfell until fairly recently, and am now a consultant to the firm, was referred to earlier this afternoon. Therefore, it seemed otiose to refer to it again lest it was interpreted as a plug for a particular financial institution.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House is much obliged.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: It often happens in the House that hon. Members preface their speech by saying that they hope that they will be excused if they do not follow the previous speaker. I should like quietly to follow the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). I listened intently to his speech and I shall send a copy of it in Hansard to Morgan Grenfell to ask whether it represents its point of view. It is a matter of some seriousness if some of the great merchant banking houses in Britain share that view. I know merchant bankers who are a great deal wiser than the hon. Gentleman and who understand the desperate situation in South America that we are often talking about.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) raised the question of morality and he received a legitimate, sensible and calculated answer from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). It happens that I believe in a degree of fiduciary responsibility, because otherwise the world does not work. But is not there an obligation on the part of lenders? When some institutions in the West were awash with money much of the lending to Brazil was irresponsible.
      I had the good fortune to go to Altimera, at my own expense, with Friends of the Earth, and then to talk to people in the Brazilian Government. Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. I speak with some knowledge. Is it responsible for the West to lend huge sums of money for nuclear power stations? I happen to be unashamedly pro-nuclear, but it is not acceptable for us to lend enormous sums for power stations that do not work. The three power stations between San Paolo and Rio, one of them made by Westinghouse and the other two basically by Siemens, are not working properly. That is no way to treat Brazil with its problems.
      If we do nothing, the result will be simple—the rain forests will go. It is no good talking about keeping the rain forest if we adopt the general attitude of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding that we cannot have our cake and eat it.

      869
      We must be clear about the view of Morgan Grenfell. I want to ask the Economic Secretary a direct question. It so happens that when I was in Brasilia a lunch was given by the excellent British ambassador, Michael Newington, physicist and many other things, for Kit McMahon, an old friend of mine from the Bank of England in the 1970s when he used to brief me for the budget committee of the European Parliament. Let me say openly in the House that I think that he has been greatly attacked, as has Jeremy Morse, for being "callous" about the rain forest. I am sure that, in his personal capacity, Kit McMahon is as concerned about the rain forest as I or any other Opposition Member—as is Jeremy Morse. I criticise neither the chairman of Lloyds bank nor the chairman of the Midland bank.
      8 pm
      I should, however, like to ask the Treasury a question. On his return from Brasilia, Kit McMahon talked at some length—if not to Ministers, at least to officials—about practical ways of alleviating the debt problem. He had been accompanied by senior debt advisers from the Midland bank. My first question is, what has been the result of the McMahon mission? Is there anything that the House can be told?
      As a result of the initiatives of the hon. Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and other officers of the Latin American parliamentary group, I met over lunch—and subsequently —the Ecuador ambassador, Senor de Correa. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West gave a striking example of the results of the many earthquakes in the area: after one of them oil pipelines were cut, and it became difficult to repay the debt.
      This is my second question: have the Government any contingency plans for what might be called "hiccups", when for one reason or another it becomes difficult to pay debt in the short term? It is the old moratorium problem. Unless we do something, there will be a simple consequence: the Japanese will give Ecuador money for fishing round the Galapagos Islands, with terrible consequences to the ecology of that unique archipelago.
      Incidentally, we should understand that the huge Green vote in the European elections did not necessarily represent an endorsement of every aspect of Green policy. It was about something else; it registered a general unease about the problems described so excellently in "The Fragile Earth" and other programmes on all four main television channels.
      My third question is this: is the Minister able to report on the success of the mission to Brasilia undertaken by the Minister for Overseas Development—the Patten mission? As one who has secured Adjournment and Consolidated Fund debates on rain forest problems, I am led to believe by what I read and hear that the Minister did extremely well in Brasilia. I happen to share the view of a leader in The Times that the way to go about such matters is through quiet diplomacy. If a British Minister has done well, I feel that it is up to Opposition Members to say so. That is my view until such time as the Minister can report back in detail.
      I should, however, like to know under what Treasury guidelines the right hon. Gentleman reached last week's agreement. I say that as one who was invited by the Foreign Office Minister—as were a number of others—to
      870
      meet the British ambassadors to South America when they were in London last month. They were extremely cognisant of the problem.
      That brings me to my fourth question, which concerns the Paris summit. What will be the Treasury's view of the general concept of debt-for-nature swaps? The Times leader of 6 July, quoted so approvingly by the Prime Minister at today's Question Time, states:
      "Brazil's own newly-minted environmental scheme for the Amazon, launched last April under the nationalistic slogan `Our Nature', has been widely criticised as a public relations exercise. It includes new forest reserves and nature parks, forest guards, and a much-needed new soil map, and has temporarily suspended subsidies for logging and ranching. Land reforms are proposed to encourage small farmers to settle in the more fertile scrublands of central and west Brazil.
      But the funds to match the plan are lacking; and it was accompanied by cuts in the budgets of the two major Amazon research institutes. Brazil's difficulty in servicing its foreign debt, underlined again this week by its formal notification of delays in payments to its creditors, ought to make possible some form of debt-for-environment deal."
      What is the Treasury's view?
      I know that there are constraints on time, and this is my last question. Treasury Ministers, along with many other people, will know about the long articles on the Brazilian rain forest that have appeared in The Sunday Times. I—like, I suspect, a number of my colleagues—wrote a detailed letter to Sir Peter Walters. BP has always been extremely helpful to me; I represent one of its big units in Grangemouth, where many people work. I should like to ask the Treasury about an aspect of the reply to my letter. I think that this is in order, as it directly concerns the World Bank.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is indirectly related, but as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to conclude his remarks, I shall allow him to do so.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is difficult to scrutinise the actions of the British director of the World Bank in the House although I do not criticise him personally. Presumably he acts under Great George street instructions.
      Item 2 of Sir Peter Walters' reply states:
      "'The mining company says the total directly cleared for open cast mining sites is 13,500 acres', whereas, `an expert employed by the World Bank and surveys by the Brazilian forestry service estimate that as much as 250,000 acres has been adversely affected'."
      BP replied:
      "The area of the Jamari National Forest is 215,000 hectares (531,000 acres) in which Jacunda's mining rights cover 59,500 hectares (147,000 acres) about 28 per cent. of the Forest. The area of land cleared for operations, including mining, access roads, housing and caring for the workforce and their families, is 4,500 acres, less than 1 per cent. of the Forest; depending on the season, a further 2,500 to 7,000 hectares are flooded areas to provide water for the operation. These figures have been confirmed by the forestry service, IBAMA.
      As we have so far been unable to contact Marc Dourojeannie, the World Bank authority cited by the Sunday Times, we cannot comment on the basis of his calculations, or his statement on the area being 'affected', but if they are intended to apply only to the Jacunda project they are simply incompatible with the scale of this operation."
      As the Treasury is the British Ministry responsible for World Bank actions, I am entitled to ask for a considered reply from the Treasury—although obviously I cannot expect an answer tonight—explaining what instructions it has given our own executive director of the World Bank about the controversy between Sir Peter Walters and BP on the one hand The Sunday Times on the other.
      Mr. Lilley: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the burden of debt, including servicing debt, placed on many underdeveloped countries. The question we must consider is whether the new clause provides an appropriate way of dealing with the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) correctly and lucidly spelt out, the existing law already relieves all bad debts from taxation, whether they are owed to sovereign Governments or commercial entities, and no distinction between the two is made.
      In practice, new clause 7, which grants relief when a debt to a sovereign third world country is cancelled, would add nothing to the existing law. It would be neither a relief nor, as it stands, a restriction of a relief. It would simply reaffirm part of a relief that is inherent in the law as it stands.
      The debate is circling around new clause 8 which, for technical reasons, has not been called. New clause 8 would limit tax relief in respect of other bank loans to Third world countries which have not been cancelled. The question is whether the new clause would help. It is obviously intended to encourage the cancellation of Third world debts to banks, but it would discourage new lending by banks to Third world countries. Banks would be unlikely to enter into new loans with Third world countries if they knew that, in the event of failure to repay, tax relief would not be made available to them, as it is when they make provision for expected repayments in their dealings with sovereign countries or commercial companies. We should be creating a disincentive to banks to engage in new lending to underdeveloped countries. That would be good. A resumption of new lending by banks to underdeveloped countries is vital, where appropriate, and where confidence exists. That is part of the reason for the so-called Brady plan and the encouragement of moves along those lines by the Group of Seven. We should like the burden of servicing existing debt to be alleviated and new lending to be resumed by commercial banks to large debtors. I cannot therefore recommend either new clause 7 or new clause 8, although I recognise the entirely benevolent intentions of the Opposition in tabling them.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the effect of Government lending and of the lending by international financial institutions had enabled the underdeveloped countries to repay their interest on commercial debt to commercial banks and that it had amounted, therefore, to a subsidy to the banks. He is saying, in effect, that Government aid goes not to underdeveloped countries but by a circuitous route to banks. It was an interesting attempt to undermine the case for Government aid to underdeveloped countries. According to that analysis, none of it reaches underdeveloped countries.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) rightly pointed out that banks have a fiduciary responsibility in the running of their affairs both to their shareholders—the people . who ultimately finance the provisions that are made against bad debts —and to their depositors and that it is right that they should behave responsibly and recognise their duties. We welcome the fact that the worst phase of the debt crisis has passed. It poses much less of a threat to the world financial system than it did because banks have built up provisions, at the expense of their shareholders, to enable them to finance the bad debts on their books. We do not believe
      872
      that it is wrong that in meeting the tax law requirements they should enjoy tax relief on those provisions against bad debts. It is accepted that people should not pay tax on profits that they have not made. If we were to deprive them of tax relief on the provisions that they have made against genuine bad debts, we should be taxing them on profits that they have not made. That could not be in the interests of the banking system, depositors and the many shareholders who ultimately are the owners of the banks.
      Ms. Diane Abbott: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I was not here during the earlier part of the discussion on the new clause. The Minister says that the worst part of the debt crisis is over. It may be over for the European banks, but for Third world countries, which are under the hammer of the International Monetary Fund, the worst part of the debt crisis is yet to come. The debt crisis is not just about making life easy for western European banks; it is also about social and political conditions in Third world countries. Does the Minister agree that banks which made unwise loans to corrupt and illiberal regimes should not get a tax rake off from the taxpayer?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Lilley: I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied with making that rather pedantic point. I said that the worst threat to the international financial system is over. I accept that the real concern of the House, as I began by saying —perhaps the hon. Lady was not in the Chamber even then—relates to the poverty burden that has been placed on underdeveloped countries. I gave up five years of my life to working on aid programmes in underdeveloped countries, so I know considerably more about it than perhaps the hon. Lady does. Therefore, attempts to prove that she is holier than the rest of us carry little weight.
      Our contribution to the well-being of indebted countries takes a number of forms. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield paid tribute to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a leading part in what became known as the Toronto terms agreement, under which sub-Saharan African countries —those most heavily indebted and whose debts are primarily to Governments—have had their loans converted into gifts by the creditor companies, while the servicing costs of non-aid loans have been reduced. That has been a major achievement of British diplomacy. A number of countries are already benefiting from that international agreement.
      It is vital that we should also encourage the renewed flow of private capital from developed countries to underdeveloped countries—not least equity capital. Since we abolished exchange controls, the flow of private capital from this country to developing countries has exceeded that of all the other member states of the European Community put together and amounts to many billions of pounds. [Interruption.] When equity capital is invested by developed countries in developing countries, it increases considerably the wealth of those countries—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who knows absolutely nothing about trade, chooses to demur.
      Ms. Abbott rose—
      Mr. Lilley: The second way in which this country can help developing countries is by opening up the prospects for free trade. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said that we give aid with one hand and take it back via trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. By opening the markets of developed countries to the products of developing countries we are benefiting them. [Interruption.] The whole House must surely welcome that. [Interruption.] Unless the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington has anything novel to say on the subject, I shall not give way to her.
      We also want to encourage, by means of aid provision and any technical assistance that we can give to developing countries, the development of their own economies so that they will be able to prosper on their own without having to rely on aid. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady wish to intervene or just to continue to chatter?
      Ms. Abbott: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because, as he says, I was not here during the early part of the debate. However, is he aware that 3 per cent. of the gross domestic product of developing countries flows not from us to them but from them to us?
      Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Lady had been here during the early part of the debate she would have known that that point had been agreed by all the parties. She has not contributed to the debate by intervening and making that point now.
      Having taken the initiative in the case of the sub-Saharan African countries—the most impoverished and the most indebted countries whose debt is primarily to Governments—our concern now relates mostly to middle income debtors. Their debt is, by and large, with the commercial banks. It is therefore up to them, in consultation with the commercial banks, to reach arrangements to their mutual benefit to enable those countries satisfactorily to service debts, where appropriate, for the banks to recognise that debts may have to be written off, to reschedule or reduce the burden of those debts and, above all, to try to open the way to renewal of lending. That is the way forward, but it cannot be achieved by the Government manipulating the tax system, and for that reason I urge the House not to accept the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked a lengthy list of questions. Obviously I shall have to write to him, but I hope that he will clarify his second question asking me whether I am aware of the hiccup problem and the fact that it could well lead to Japanese fishermen going round the Galapagos Islands. I shall need considerable clarification before I can answer that question, but I shall do my best.
      I urge the Opposition to withdraw new clause 7 which fails to achieve what they sought, and would simply create a disincentive to new lending by banks to underdeveloped countries, which the whole House wishes to continue.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Economic Secretary's style in the House seems to be deteriorating. He seems to be modelling himself on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I cannot commend that. As I understand his summation of the debate, the decision to borrow money carries great moral obligations which can never be redressed, yet the decision to lend does not. We do not accept that proposition. Nevertheless, the Economic
      874
      Secretary was right in discerning that our heart was really in clause 8 which has not been called. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 9

      SCHEDULE E: BENEFITS IN KIND
      '(1) Section 154 ICTA 1988 shall not apply to any benefits facilities or expenditure falling within subsection (2) below.

      (2) This subsection applies to the bona fide provision of workplace nurseries of other creche facilities which are made available generally to the children of employees at a location on a basis that such provision would not have the effect of conferring benefits wholly or mainly on directors of companies or on those employees who are in receipt of the higher or highest levels of remuneration.'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—
      Tax Relief for nursery care—

      '(1) For the purposes of the Tax Act 1988, section 154, there shall be excluded from a charge to income tax of a benefit in kind any benefit arising from an employee from the provision by the employer of nursery care facilities to any children under 5 of the employee, provided only that such nursery facilities are available to employees of the employer generally.

      (2) An employee making payments for nursery care in respect of any of their own children under 5 shall be entitled to claim, as a deduction qualifying for basic income tax relief only, any payment made in this regard up to a limit of £45 per week per child.

      (3) For the purposes of the above clause, an employee is defined as a person who works 25 hours a week or more, excluding meal breaks.'.

      Mr. Smith: On 11 April, the Home Office issued a news release from the ministerial group on women's issues headed:
      "Choice and high standards are the key to the provision of childcare".
      It emphasised how important the Government believed the provision of good quality childcare was. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), said:
      "Employers also have a significant part to play—using the tax reliefs available to them, to provide childcare facilities and to attract skilled mothers who have chosen to return to work in a time of demographic change."
      That point was emphasised later in the press release. One of the points in the five-point plan announced by the Government to assist women to enter the work force was:
      "Further encouragement to employers to use the tax reliefs available to provide childcare facilities."
      To ram the point home even further, the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science said:
      "These initiatives are a significant contribution in developing the provisions of childcare."
      That news release demonstrated clearly that the Government have hit on the extremely important principle of supporting the provision of good childcare facilities by employers at the workplace. But by their actions the Government are fundamentally undermining the principle they purport to uphold. For a start, there is very little incentive in the tax system—and very little take-up by employers—to provide workplace nurseries. The offsetting

      875
      of workplace nursery provision against corporation tax liability involves, among other things, a long-term commitment which many employers are reluctant to make.
      The crucial drawback to providing workplace nursery provision is the tax on the deemed benefit that a parent receives when placing a child in a subsidised workplace nursery. Since 1985, the Inland Revenue has regarded the taking up of a subsidised nursery place as a benefit in kind. The subsidy has to be added to the income for income tax computation, provided that the total of income plus deemed benefits is at least £8,500. The tax on workplace nursery take-up acts as a powerful disincentive to parents with young chidlren, especially mothers considering taking up employment when the changing demography of the work force means that we should be encouraging rather than discouraging women from taking up work.
      There are about 100 workplace nurseries in the United Kingdom. The main providers tend to be local authorities and health authorities. It is estimated that as few as 20 companies in the private sector provide workplace nurseries. One honourable potential exception to that is Midland Bank plc which is proposing a large-scale development of between 200 and 300 workplace nurseries. If that goes ahead, the bank will deserve considerable credit, but the current figure of 100 workplace nurseries throughout the country is far too low. It demonstrates first the need to ensure that the provision of workplace nursery space is increased, and secondly that the income to the Exchequer from the tax which the Inland Revenue imposes on the deemed benefit is minimal.
      On the need to increase provision, Britain is currently one of Europe's poorest providers of childcare facilities. We should be developing a pattern of provision in which employers certainly have a part to play alongside local authorities and voluntary organisations. Most of Europe and the United States have no tax on workplace nursery provision. The tax discourages employees from taking up workplace nursery places and employers from providing workplace nurseries. While the tax exists for the potential beneficiaries, employers will be much more reluctant to establish workplace nurseries. The tax acts as a discouragement to the provision of workplace nurseries, and removing the tax would assist.
      As for the income to the Exchequer, every time I have asked the Financial Secretary by means of parliamentary questions for information about how much money accrues to the Exchequer as a result of the tax on the deemed benefit of workplace nursery provision, the answer is that the Government do not know. The figure is so small that the Government are unable to compute the benefit to the Exchequer. That makes nonsense of the argument that the Inland Revenue has occasionally deployed and, in particular, deployed in a letter of 4 May to the Workplace Nurseries Campaign, in which it set out what I presume is the Government's policy on the matter. It said:
      "The Government recognise both the contribution to the economy of women with children and the importance of making the best use of their skills in the future."
      So far, so good. The Inland Revenue sensibly made an important point.
      8.30 pm
      However, the letter continues:
      "But they believe that it is better to encourage those mothers who wish to work to do so by reducing tax rates and
      876
      increasing personal allowances rather than by providing special exemptions which tend to narrow the tax base and drive tax rates up."
      We know that the income from the deemed tax on nursery workplace provision is minimal. How on earth can it be assumed to narrow the tax base and drive tax rates up? The Government and the Inland Revenue ignore the fact that it is possible both to follow the pattern that the Government themselves wish to set on tax rates and personal allowances, and to take the step for which we argue and remove the tax on workplace benefit. There is no fiscal or financial excuse for the Government to keep this tax in place.
      When the Government initially brought in the measures to tax workplace nursery provision, they argued that it would be a tax only on the benefits of the high paid. They set a threshold of £8,300, about which one might have had queries even at the time. That figure is now equal to roughly the average working woman's wage. It is hardly a threshold which means that only the high paid end up having to face this tax. It is a particular irony that one can be liable for workplace nursery tax at the same time as receiving family credit because one's income is too low for the needs of the family.
      One specific example has been drawn to my attention by the Workplace Nurseries Campaign. The single mother in question works in Leicester and uses the Leicester city council workplace nursery. She has monthly outgoings of £62 in nursery fees, £50 in nursery tax, £140 in mortgage and £23 in rates. Even with the addition of £32 a month family credit, she is left with less than £40 a week to feed and clothe herself and her four-year-old child. The fact that the Government can with one hand take away £50 in the workplace nursery tax and with the other hand give £32 a month in family credit makes a nonsense of the tax which the Government seek to continue by rejecting new clause 9.
      The workplace nursery tax causes hardship in many cases. The Government argue that taking up workplace nursery provision is a perk or benefit, like a company car. But nursery provision is completely different from that. It is an essential, necessary and insurmountable provision, which not only enables a woman to take up work, but has to be available before she can even contemplate being able to do so. One cannot say the same about the great majority of people who benefit from a company car. If the Government want to use the argument about perks and benefits, why do they not extend the workplace nurseries principle to subsidised canteens, sports grounds or aspects of pension provision? All those are tax free and are not subject to the same provisions as workplace nurseries.
      What about the security provisions of clauses 50, 51 and 52? It is right that those clauses should be included because they are sensible and justifiable measures. However, the same principle that applies to the essential provision of security measures should apply to the essential provision of workplace nursery space for women who need to avail themselves of that space to enable them to go to work.
      For many years, the Labour party has argued that the workplace nursery tax should be removed. In moving new clause 9, we seek to achieve precisely that. The tax causes hardship, it discourages women from seeking work and it provides a disincentive for enlightened employers seeking to establish good workplace provision. The workplace nursery tax should have been scrapped years ago and we

      877
      are offering the House a chance to do so, at long last, today. It brings in a minimal income to the Exchequer and acts as a powerful disincentive to women, with young children, who are thinking of going out to work. We should be encouraging them, not discouraging them with an extra burden in tax. The Government claim that a nursery place is a perk; it is not. It is an essential facility to enable women to play a full part in the economic life of our nation. There is no such tax in other European countries or in the United States and there should not be one in Britain.
      Mr. George Walden: I am rather puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I will not support his point because it is far too timorous. We do not need workplace provision for children; we need nursery education for all. I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking in a rather technocratic way, which suggests that the Labour party is losing its radical impetus and, perhaps, its broader vision.
      I also have an ideological objection to what the hon. Gentleman said. It is not the function of employers to look after the dependants of employees. The answer to the problem he raised is much broader. We should have high-quality nursery provision for all. It is rather typical of the hon. Gentleman that at no point did he mention the function of that dreadful, anonymous word "provision". I am concerned not with child care, but with educating children and doing something productive for a child's development, rather than merely looking after a child in some "caring" mode.
      Mr. Madden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Walden: No, because I am going to speak very briefly.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): Will my hon. Friend not give way even to me?
      Mr. Walden: How can I refuse?
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the teeth of opposition from Lancashire county council we have opened a gorgeous nursery provision in our local Skerton county primary school? The county council which is, of course, Labour-controlled turned the scheme down two years ago. However, as a result of the pupils themselves putting the case forcefully and the parents' support we obtained the wonderful provision for which my hon. Friend is now speaking.
      Mr. Walden: My heart is warmed, but not overflowing. I remember defending the Government record, which was creditable, when I was an Education Minister. Provision had risen from 17 per cent. to 42 per cent. over about 10 years and that sounded fine. Fortunately, no one ever asked two basic questions. The first was that if nursery provision was so good, why was it not available to everybody? People could have asked me why it depended on where a child lived. Secondly, there was the question of the quality of nursery provision. I would not spend a penny piece, to paraphrase an hon. Member, on low quality "caring" child care.
      We should spend as much as we possibly can on high-quality, educative nursery provision for all. We have 42 per cent. nursery provision, and it is extremely patchy. Some of it is amateur and some of it consists of play care. Some of it is very good—I have seen some very good
      878
      nursery schools run by local authorities—but the fact remains that in Britain we have only 42 per cent. provision. whereas in France the figure is 97 per cent. That may account in part for the generally higher quality of the behaviour of children in French schools and the generally higher quality of their educational attainment.
      We frequently see in the newspapers touching photographs of Princess Diana taking her children to nursery school. She is setting a splendid example, but there are an awful lot of people in this country who will never have the money to buy private nursery education and there are an awful lot of places where nursery education is not provided by local authorities. Having briefly served in Government, I have the disadvantage of being a realist. I know that such provision costs a lot of money. Indirectly, the Government are already spending about £400 million on local provision. If we are to double nursery provision, therefore, we are talking about a figure of about £1 billion.
      I do not expect the Government to give me the assurance that I should like to hear. Clearly we shall have to be extremely careful about public expenditure in the short term. Having said that, I do not understand the Government's argument—which, as a loyal supporter, I naturally had to advance—that nursery education is an excellent thing, but that it should not be available for everyone.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has underlined the case supported by members of all parties for more widespread nursery education. We had hints of such support from the Prime Minister in her earlier guise as Secretary of State for Education, but since them nursery education has slipped further and further down the list of priorities.
      The question of such provision is an important part of the background to the new clause. The first and main argument for providing nursery education is that it is in the interests of the children themselves. In many cases, their subsequent school career can be greatly enhanced by a year or more of nursery education.
      The second compelling reason for such provision is to be found in current demographic trends in Britain. It is obvious that in many areas it will be impossible to recruit sufficient people of the necessary skill and ability into industry and the public service if more opportunities are not provided for women to take employment, and that cannot be done without nursery provision.
      The third argument in favour of nursery provision concerns rights and opportunities for women. Quite apart from the labour shortages of the future, we should remember that many women feel prevented from developing their potential in employment and serving the community, whether in the public service or the private sector, because of lack of nursery provision.
      I support the proposals in the new clause, but, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, they are somewhat timid and lacking in radicalism, as they do not go beyond the concept of the workplace nursery, which at the moment accounts for a minuscule proportion of nursery provision. Workplace provision has actually shrunk. I can remember when there was at least one workplace nursery in my constituency, but it is no longer there.
      Perhaps the new clause will lead to some enlargement of workplace nursery provision. That would be a good thing and would be of benefit, as people would then be able to take advantage of workplace provision without suffering a

      879
      tax disadvantage. But the new clause is unlikely to answer the needs of large numbers of women who want to work, and it will make no difference to those on low incomes who have access to workplace nurseries at present.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that the average woman's wage was £8,500 a year. That took me by surprise. The hon. Gentleman must have looked at the figures more recently than I have. If that is the average women's wage, I can tell him that not many women in my constituency are earning the average. A great many of the women who might use workplace nurseries do not fall into the category of people who would enjoy a tax benefit from the provisions of the new clause. That is not an argument against the new clause; it simply shows that much remains to be done if we are to make a significant advance in the provision of nursery facilities.
      The new clause will do nothing for the numerous people who now have to buy nursery provision or child care because they do not have access to workplace nurseries. Many people are in that category and they will remain in that category because workplace nurseries would never answer all the needs, even if provision were miraculously extended to every large place of work. For many women, it is neither convenient nor appropriate to take a child away from the local environment where friends and family may be able to help at the end of the nursery school day. And such provision is clearly not appropriate in jobs where there is no single large workplace in which to provide such facilities.
      My hon. Friends and I have argued for a wider provision, designed to afford some tax relief to those who are buying nursery education or child care and to enable them to remain in employment. The relief would, of course, be confined to those in employment.
      8.45 pm
      Before the Government rush to attack the idea of using the tax system to provide such a benefit or subsidy, they must remember that in this Finance Bill they are extending tax relief to private health care for pensioners on the basis that that is immensely socially desirable. The provision of some tax relief for those needing nursery care for their children if they are to work is not only socially desirable; it will become ever more urgent over the next few years as acute labour shortages arise in some major industries in the public sector.
      The arguments extend beyond the proposals in the new clause that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, as the need for provision extends beyond the age of five. There are strong arguments for greater child care provision for those of school age—for example, in the school holidays and between 3 pm and 6 pm, when many women have to work if they are to remain in employment. In the years to come we must consider how we can make adequate provision for good child care that is beneficial and educative to the children concerned and enables women to take employment.
      The new clause would relieve a tiny number of women of a tax burden. That is no bad thing, and I welcome it. It may enhance somewhat the attractiveness of workplace nurseries and I shall be pleased if it does that, too. Nevertheless, it represents a very small step in terms of
      880
      providing nursery care for the children of women who want to work and providing child care for a larger number of children.
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: I, too, shall be brief, because I realise that there is a lot of interest in this subject.
      I think that the Government have taken the right line. All sorts of complications will arise if we adopt the proposals of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) or the hon. Member for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Berwick-upon-Tweed."] Not only did I forget the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but I have forgotten the name of his party. Both proposals would cause more anomalies than they would solve.
      If we say that a workplace nursery is not a perk and therefore should not be taxed because it does not confer benefit, we shall immediately create an anomaly. There are those who, because of the nature of their work, do not and never will have access to workplace nurseries. Is it fair that one group of employees should get free child care, which is what it would amount to, while another group of employees who do not have access to workplace nurseries still have to pay for them? If we broaden the matter and say that the answer is tax reliefs on child care in general, whether it is provided in workplace nurseries or whether people make their own arrangements, we create another anomaly. Do we still extend tax relief on child care to mothers who are not working but who nevertheless employ help for their children and, if not, why not? Can child care be administered in two completely separate tiers? There are important practical difficulties in doing what the Opposition wish.
      Additionally, the principle behind the Government's reasoning is right. There are many crucial matters in deciding whether a woman goes out to work, and child care is but one of them. It is not the only crucial, essential point that a woman will consider when deciding whether to work. There is the obvious cost of getting to work. I have never heard this disputed, but that should certainly be regarded as the employee's responsibility, whatever distance the person has to travel to get to work.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Lady must know that many large companies provide free buses as a matter of course to take their work force to work.
      Miss Widdecombe: That is if the employer rather than the employee is remote. If the employee decides that it is worth incurring a large cost to commute over substantial distances to get to work, regardless of the incursion into his wage packet, that is very much his own concern. The same applies to company cars. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that by no means could company cars be compared with child care. However, in some instances, company cars are essential for the work to be done.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Lady must have misheard me. I said clearly and specifically that in a majority of cases company cars are a genuine perk. There are, of course, some forms of employment in which a company car is a necessity, and I would class those cases somewhat differently.
      Miss Widdecombe: Nevertheless, even if a company car is essential, to a certain extent it is still regarded as a perk.

      881
      I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman has never had representations on that point. 1 have certainly received many representations from people who are being taxed on their company cars and who go into great detail explaining why and how their cars are not a benefit but a necessity. It is an absolute necessity for me, when employing office secretaries, to have a typewriter. If I choose to buy one rather than hire one, I still pay the tax on it because it is deemed to be a benefit. All sorts of essential items—child care may be one—are not entirely free of tax.
      Where do we stop if we say that it is essential that a woman receives tax benefits on child care if she is to go out to work? If she is allowed to receive tax benefits on the care of her youngest child, why should she not be able to claim that if she has to go out to work for long hours—the normal work time, with only four weeks' holiday a year —she requires additional domestic help? Should that not be regarded as a perk? That question must be answered.
      It seem very worthy to say that we want to encourage women to go back to work and that we should either remove the tax on workplace nurseries or, possibly, give tax reliefs if other arrangements are made, but it raises all the other essential points associated with a woman going back to work. In Committee there was a long discussion about advancing tax benefits up to a certain sum, but never was it taken into account that one would then benefit those who did not go out to work.
      Also I am concerned—I am perhaps not very concerned at this stage, but I could become very concerned—that if we give tax reliefs or remove something that has been regarded as a perk we shall actually direct employers, and employees for that matter, towards a certain method of getting women hack to work. There are many ingredients involved in getting women into work. Child care is but one. Flexible working practices is another. I do not want to see child care tax benefit become available in such a way as to make flexible working practices or other possible alternatives second-rate choices so that false pressure develops for one particular form of benefit.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to another problem. He asked whether we were talking about the under-fives. Surely if we expect mothers to work, we are talking also about older children—certainly those up to secondary school age. If we are to have a proper system of child care, nannies must also be taken into account. Their position is different. It is not a matter of a mother taking a child to work with her and taking it home at night. It is a matter of the child being collected and put somewhere for two hours to be looked after and collected again. That is a different system. Will that attract tax advantages? What about that as a necessity, certainly for a mother with older children?
      The Opposition are opening a pandora's box. They have not considered the detail of the problem. They are looking at one small aspect of getting women back to work without assessing the effects on other aspects or on non-working women who, nevertheless, have children. All those points must be taken into account. The Opposition have picked on a simple route and have not considered the complexities that will surely follow.
      9 pm
      Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in the debate. Our proposal is simple and straightforward, but Conservative
      882
      Members have not grasped what it is about. The clause would make the provision of child care at workplace nurseries tax neutral. It would not be a tax incentive. It would mean that women or parents will still pay for nursery places, but they will not pay tax on top of the cost that they already pay.
      Opposition Members agree with much of what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, but we are talking mainly about children of ages that are unsuitable for nursery education. We are talking about children aged up to three and about extended day care for children between the ages of three and four. No hon. Member—least of all the hon. Gentleman—would say that we want those children to be in nursery education during all the hours that many workplace nurseries would care for children. Therefore, we are talking about a specific form of child care.
      We recognise that that form of child care is, and only ever could be, a small part of the overall pattern of child care and nursery education for which we are looking. Indeed, Ministers have said that many women would not choose a workplace nursery because it would not be suitable for their needs, but I emphasise that it would be eminently suitable for other women and that they want the opportunity of choosing it.
      However, the Government's measures are making that provision more and more difficult to achieve. Employers who are trying to establish workplace nurseries are finding that the obstacles are so great that many are giving up before they start. Even the organisation that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned, the Midland bank, is finding incredible difficulty in putting into practice the commitments that it made earlier this year.
      The Government's policy on child care and nursery provision is an incredible mess. On one day I heard the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), say that when considering the Government's child care policy in his position as chairman of the ministerial group on women's issues, the main thought driving him was that the Government should not be seen to be pushing women back into the workplace. However, on the very next day I attended a conference that was addressed by the Secretary of State for Employment. He talked about women seeing the next decade as the window of opportunity upon which they must seize. Therefore, on the one hand the Government are saying to women, "We welcome and value your skills and training in the workplace," and on the other hand they are saying, "We are not going to assist you in any way in making proper provision for your children."
      It is no wonder that this country loses far more women from the workplace during their childbearing years than do any of our European competitors. When those women re-enter the work force, they do so with lower status and a lower pay level than they enjoyed when they left. Therefore, their skills, knowledge and experience are being wasted. Women who do not want to take that road and who, perhaps, want to work part-time or to work the flexible hours to which the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) referred have to decide—because there is such woefully inadequate childcare provision—that, because they have children, they have no option but to stay at home and look after them.
      Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Lady maintains that there are a number of restrictions facing women going back to work, but does she agree that we have one of the highest percentages of women in work of any European country?
      Ms. Armstrong: I do not want to argue with the hon. Gentleman across the Chamber, but his assertion is not true for the critical period that I am talking about. The majority of those women now in the work force are working part-time and for the majority that is not through choice. I invite the hon. Gentleman to talk to the editor of the Sunday Mirror about the campaign that that newspaper has been running. Since it raised this issue in its columns, it has received thousands upon thousands of letters and petitions from women on this single issue about removing the workplace nursery tax. Women recognise the barriers that I am talking about as barriers.
      I also invite the hon. Gentleman to read a recent report published by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which showed the number of women that we are losing from the workplace. We are losing their skills and training because they never re-enter the work force at a level at which they can use the skills and training that they had had as younger women. The EOC has said that the main reason for that is the poverty of our child care provision.
      One of our problems in this country is that we still try to make women feel guilty if they want to work and to rear children. That is nonsense because in those countries that have a long-established tradition of strong family life, such as Italy and France, full-time child care is available for young children because it is recognised as a way of enhancing family life rather than detracting from it. It is time that we moved towards that sort of culture and those ideas.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: The arguments that my hon. Friend has outlined are one of the reasons why many women feel compelled to compete for jobs working in schools, such as on school meals. As that is the only thing that they can do, there is great competition for those jobs which meet and match school hours. I know that my wife faced that situation when our children were at school.
      Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend apparently knows of the experience of interviewing women for a job at about £1·50 an hour for about 12 hours a week and receiving a huge number of applications for the job.
      My hon. Friend also mentioned schools. Another aspect of Government policy has meant a great shortage of primary school teachers. Our recent research shows that a reason why we are losing primary school teachers and cannot keep them in the profession is that they are not eligible for priority places in nurseries, so they cannot work. The children of this country are beginning to suffer because of that.
      It is important to offer a variety of opportunities to parents and children. Workplace nurseries are only a part of that, and it is extraordinary that the Government should see them as a perk. This morning I visited a private nursery which is determined not to sacrifice quality to make money. Because of that, it has to charge £109 a week to cover costs. The nursery is prepared to offer its services in the work place. If the company subsidises it at, say, £20 a week, parents would still have to find £89. Under the Government's policy they would have to pay tax on top of that.
      884
      It is difficult to speak on this issue only in the terms of the Finance Bill because the Government are enacting so many measures that affect child care. Under the Children Bill, it is intended to charge for the registration of day nurseries and child minders. So the Government are placing another charge on childcare and workplace nurseries.
      The Government cannot be serious about quality, because these costs put quality out of the reach of the vast majority of working women. We are asking for a minimum contribution, but if the Government accepted the new clause they would show that they had begun to grasp what the problem is about. It is not a simple issue, to be solved by throwing a few pounds at it. It is complex and it affects the future opportunities of millions of children.
      I ask the Government to rethink. On the evidence of this debate there is clearly much misunderstanding about this subject. We have never argued that workplace nurseries are the answer to everything, but they do contribute to offering some parents the chance to place their children in a workplace nursery if they believe that that is best for their families.
      The Government have erected many obstacles. We ask them to remove one of the small ones, which would cost them very little but would mean symbolically that they were beginning to realise the enormity of the task of beginning to compete with our European neighbours. Accepting the new clause would mean that the Government had begun to consider the future opportunities of our children and women. That is not much to ask, and I urge the Government to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: As an educationist, I strongly support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) for nursery education for all children whose parents seek to avail themselves of it. However, we are in some danger in this debate of pressing for two-tier nursery provision. While I believe that, if nothing else is available, a workplace nursery would be of great value to a child, the fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, in some areas outstanding community provision is made for children aged from three to five years and from nought to three years. We could have the situation in which, on the one hand, children are in beautifully run, expensive community nurseries, surrounded by green fields, and, on the other, children are in workplace nurseries, perhaps in factories, begrimed, with vile surroundings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) is shaking her head, but with me she visited an establishment in the United States where the children did not see daylight. I do not believe that it is fair, as a principle, to provide facilities for children in which there is such inequality. We should be saying that we want good provision for all children.
      I have been listed as being in favour of workplace nurseries. If nothing else is available, there is a lot to be said for such provision, but it is second best. No inspections are made and no standards are laid down for the children—
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
      Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way. The hon. Lady will have her opportunity.

      885
      No standards are laid down for the staff working in workplace nurseries, or for the facilities for the children. That is where the workplace nursery movement falls down. It does not hold a satisfactory standard to which we can point. The best nurseries are excellent, but the worst are not and cannot be satisfactory.
      I mentioned the visit of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, who keeps interrupting from a sedentary position, and myself to the United States. We saw children in a nursery in Washington. which was very nicely appointed, but we were uncertain about the education being offered to those children. It was not of the kind that I would have sought. Children from two weeks upwards were in that institution, but the staff said that they ensured that all the children got out into green fields for at least three hours a day. That just could not happen in many workplace nurseries, which is one of my reservations about them. We must also face the fact that they are not inspected and that they have no agreed and established standards. People who advocate workplace nurseries do themselves and their cause no favours by ignoring that argument.
      Ms. Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Greenway: The hon. Lady has made her speech; perhaps she will allow me to make mine.
      What I am saying is not to condemn workplace nurseries or the important argument that has been put by hon. Members on both sides of the House for supporting working women, especially those with young children. We must remember that in the United States 62 per cent. of women with a child of one year old or younger go to work, while in this country it is only 27 per cent. The figures are rising in each country. When my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said that the nation's attention should be drawn to the need to provide children with something better than a workplace nursery, he was speaking sound good sense.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) did not advance a single educational argument in favour of workplace nurseries.
      Ms. Armstrong rose—
      Mr. Greenway: I should also like to have heard some educational arguments from the hon. Lady, who persists in trying to intervene. She said nothing about what workplace nurseries are intended to do for children aged up to three and even between three and five.
      The case for workplace nurseries can be made. In particular, the child must develop self-esteem above all things, but it will not do so if it is cast aside, uncared for, and not given proper nursery provision. So much flows from self-esteem. The whole philosophy of the headstart programme in the United States is based on giving children self-esteem, which is quite right. More needs to be made of the value of nursery education and of the precise roles that workplace nurseries have to play. Is it right to expand the provision of workplace nurseries, or would it be better to expand the provision of nurseries of a broader and more general nature?
      9.15 pm
      Ms. Abbott: As many of the arguments for workplace nurseries have already been made, I shall make only three brief points. Many of the proposals made in debate are
      886
      impractical, and that is because so few right hon. and hon. Members bear the responsibility for having their children looked after while they go to work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, how can the Government claim that they are responding to demographic changes by trying to get more women into the work force when they are unwilling to look favourably upon the ideas contained in new clause 9?
      Conservative Members speak about workplace nurseries and tax relief as though they are simply cash benefits. Clearly no Conservative Member who has spoken has experience of getting children out of bed, getting their breakfast, taking them to a child minder, and then going to work. If they had, they would know that for many millions of women throughout the country workplace nurseries are, first and foremost, a practical provision. Without it, many women—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady—
      Ms. Abbott: No, I shall not give way.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Ms. Abbott: Without a form of child care—be it a workplace nursery, child minder or nanny—many women are unable to work. We are keen to see new clause 9 implemented because it will enable women to do a day's work without worrying.
      Conservative Members complain and vilify mothers of single parent families who claim benefit. I know thousands of such women in Hackney who want to go out to work and not be dependent upon either state benefits or an errant male. If proper child care facilities, such as workplace nurseries, are provided, those women could be self-reliant—as they wish to be. We seek to encourage that spirit of self-reliance in new clause 9. Every week I meet constituents who are stopped from working because they have no access to child care facilities, so work place nurseries have a role to play.
      Conservative Members also remarked that Britain has the highest, or one of the highest, proportions of women in the work force in Europe. They do not realise the kind of child care that some women have to put up with.
      I was brought up in a community where many women had to work, not because they wanted to do so, not for entertainment or for a diversion, but because they had to pay the rent. Many had to abandon their children to child minders against their better judgment. If Conservative Members had seen, as I did while growing up, the child care that some women were forced to use because of their economic circumstances, they would not be blocking a sensible provision that will provide high-quality workplace nurseries. For some women, the alternative is not to stay at home. Sadly, with heaviness of heart and great misgivings, they entrust their children to child minders who do not have the necessary training or facilities. If Conservative Members had more idea of what life was like for working women, they would not argue against the new clause.
      For three reasons—the importance of encouraging women to go into the workplace, the importance of generating high-quality workplace nurseries and the fact that this is much more than a cash benefit—I ask Conservative Members to support the new clause. It is about the practicalities for working women. No Labour

      887
      Member thinks that workplace nurseries are the only solution, but it is wrong for Conservative Members who do not have our experiences of helping and supporting ordinary working women, struggling with the problems of bringing up children and giving their children decent care while they go out to work—
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Abbott: I wish to finish my speech.
      For Conservative Members with no experience of the problems of working class women, who are trying to give their children decent care and go out to work, to block a measure that is at least part of the answer suggests great ignorance, callousness and lack of thought about demographic trends. I urge hon. Members to think about the struggles of working women, many of them single women who wish to be independent and who despair at the options offered to them, and to support the new clause.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Some of the contributions to the debate would have been better made in an education debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that our objective should be good quality nursery education available to all parents who want it for their children, but this debate on the Finance Bill is not the time when that should be developed.
      The new clause is important in terms of the way in which local authorities provide nursery education. The sad fact is that the hon. Member for Buckingham would be better off tramping around the Tory shires and preaching this message to them. The worst providers of nursery education are Conservative-controlled authorities. Money provided by the Government in rate support grant for nursery needs is not even spent by those authorities. Some of them do not provide one state-funded place in a nursery school. The nursery place is a second best provision for those who cannot go to nursery schools, but if workplace nurseries spread there is no reason why there cannot be state regulation—however much Conservative Members may not like those words—to ensure that the quality and environment of workplace nurseries are good.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) kept referring to high-quality provision at the workplace. The trouble is that there is no machinery to ensure that there is other than what she referred to as child-minding. The hon. Gentleman's point is good—the workplace nurseries must be of high quality—but how does one ensure that there is uniformity throughout the land?
      Mr. Griffiths: A debate on the Finance Bill is not the time to discuss ways to regulate workplace nurseries. We must ensure that they are of a high quality, and there are plenty of ways to achieve that. What amounts to a tax on working mothers who happen to have a child in a workplace nursery is a disincentive for companies to spread and develop nursery provision.
      The scale of the problem can best be shown by comparing Britain's provisions with those of Denmark. In Britain, only about 8 per cent. of women with families are in full-time employment, yet we provide only 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. of nursery places for children under the age of
      888
      one. In Denmark, 40 per cent. of women with families are in full-time employment and it provides more than 40 per cent. of nursery places for the youngest children.
      The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) suggested that such a provision would introduce an anomaly into the tax system. Many such anomalies already exist. In general, the 20 best providers of nursery education are Labour-controlled authorities which, in many cases, spend even more than the Government allow to ensure good nursery education. Let us take the example of a working mother who sends her four-year-old to a state-funded nursery. There is no tax impediment and the child receives a full-time education. Let us now take the example of a similar woman in a Conservative-controlled authority which provides no nursery places. If the child is placed in a workplace nursery—if there happens to be a place available—the woman is taxed on the estimated financial benefit of that nursery place. I hope, incidentally, that my remarks will not encourage the Minister to tax the assumed value of state-funded nursery education. The new clause would remove that anomaly.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as it is not the first time. What would be the position of the working mother in a Labour-controlled authority who cannot put her child into full-time nursery education because the child is under the age of two and does not have the benefit of a subsidised workplace nursery, who thus has to pay for child care?
      Mr. Griffiths: The whole point of the new clause is to ensure that that mother could send her child to a subsidised workplace nursery.
      Miss Widdecombe: But what if it does not exist?
      Mr. Griffiths: If the new clause were passed, more companies would be prepared to provide workplace nurseries and more mothers would be happy to put their children in them.
      The new clause would help a relatively small group of women to return to work, in the knowledge that their children were being well cared for because the nurseries would be well regulated and educational. For only a negligible sum of money, the Government are being mean and parsimonious towards working mothers. They are not helping them to return to work.
      Mrs. Fyfe: We all knew that the Government would not accept the new clause, but I was curious to discover their reasons for not doing so. We have heard a great deal about educational standards—Conservative Members appear to have forgotten that we are debating a tax Bill, not a children's Bill. If it were appropriate tonight, we would be more than glad to discuss educational standards. The Labour party put forward proposals in its recently published policy review document—I should be glad to lend it to Conservative Members—for a variety of childcare schemes designed to meet the needs of both children and their parents. Workplace nurseries are only one aspect of the variety of child care that we would wish to offer.
      The objection on educational grounds comes from a Government who have presided over the worst level of nursery provision in all the EEC countries, and from a Government whose Prime Minister recently told a women's magazine that mothers with childcare difficulties should get together to cobble up some informal

      889
      arrangement among themselves. She was apparently unaware that in doing so she was advising them to break the law. In addition, this is a Government who refuse to make care of under-fives a statutory responsibility for local authorities. The result is that the best provisions for the under-fives happen to be in Labour-controlled local authorities, and they are doing that with great difficulty on their constrained budget. Because they do not have a statutory responsibility to educate the under-fives, they are doing so under enormous difficulties.
      9.30 pm
      If the Government took on board all the points that we have been making, we would be delighted to have their support. But we all know perfectly well that if we were proposing all that tonight, they would vote against it in the Lobby, so let us not have such hypocrisy on the subject.
      The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred to maintenance of quality. We want high-quality provision in all sectors of care for the under-fives. But would the hon. Gentleman say that if he could not have dinner at the Ritz he would not dine at all? Of course he would not. Working women might want a convenient nursery in their locality. Mothers would not want to take their children through the wind, rain and snow to a workplace nursery and back again if a more convenient local nursery provided high-quality care. When such provision is denied to them and they know that it will continue to be denied to them as long as the Government are in office, they are interested in workplace nurseries. Provided that they are properly run, there is nothing wrong in that.
      The Opposition argue for high standards in nurseries whether they are in the workplace or elsewhere. We would not dream of advocating that a workplace nursery was a place where children were dumped during a working day and that no standards were maintained within it. A Conservative Member asked from a sedentary position how such standards would be maintained. The answer is simple—by an inspectorate, just as schools and factories are inspected. That would be the obvious way.
      While the Government are attempting to make the excellent the enemy of the good, offering absurd arguments, they are forgetting one good argument. Our proposal would benefit mainly women, but it would not benefit only women. When I was a Glasgow district councillor, we wanted to set up a workplace nursery for the entire work force, but we were frustrated in doing so because the tax put the cost beyond the pocket of many council employees. However, I recall a male worker in the building department who had five children, two of them under school age, whose wife had left him, who was delighted with the proposal and would have used the nursery. In case Conservative Members fear that backwoodsmen and women in their constituencies would consider this to be some kind of feminist point which they would deplore, let them remember that men, too, could benefit from this. That might make Conservative Members view it more favourably.
      I find it hard to understand those who are prepared to dream up every possible argument in favour of the preservation of the life of a child before birth but who do not care tuppence what happens once a child is born. I hope that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) does not think that that is a brutal argument, but I must make that point. Mothers who do
      890
      not get a workplace nursery place or a local education authority place are often forced to accept an unsatisfactory arrangement, having their children looked after by someone who is untrained and unregistered, who may not do a good job in caring for their children. If people genuinely care about the needs of children they should support the new clause.
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady said that some of us who care for children before birth do not care tuppence about them once they are born. That is categorically untrue. I have taken part in many debates in which I specifically talked about the rights of born children. The hon. Lady does not make a fair point. There are many ways of caring for children. I have not made any speech tonight against child care or nursery provision. I have talked about the anomalies created by various childcare arrangements. Childcare can also be a mother looking after her child at home and I have never done or said anything that militates against that. Will the hon. Lady withdraw that personal insult?
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry, but I have not heard anything to make me withdraw those remarks. If the hon. Member for Maidstone is sincere about caring for all children after birth, she would not only support the new clause but make a point of supporting our proposals to make nursery education and playgroup provision the statutory responsibility of local authorities. She would ensure that the Government provided funds to make that possible. If she fails to do that, she will not put her stated objectives into practice.
      The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke from experience about standards in the United States where children at nurseries get out into the fresh air. That was an extraordinary remark. No hon. Member has argued against children getting fresh air. When we talk about standards we are not thinking of cooping up children in fume-infested factories. We are thinking of sensible provision which includes fresh air and an inspectorate to maintain high standards.
      We do not wish to make workplace nurseries compulsory. Our point is that if the tax were lifted, parents and their employers could judge whether a workplace nursery could be provided and what standards could be offered. They could find a nearby site if it was not convenient to have a nursery at the workplace.
      Another specious argument was about the equality of provision. It was asked what would happen if the local authority provided a better standard than the workplace nursery. If people want to compete to provide the best standards, no Labour Member will argue against that. We want the best possible provision. I am sure that the different sectors could learn good practices from each other and the best way to provide for our children.
      As has been said, a large part of education is encouraging self-confidence and self-esteem in children and making them aware of their worth as human beings. When the education system achieves that objective we shall never again have a Tory Government because people will have learnt to value themselves more highly and they will drop their deferential attitude which sustains that bunch in Government.
      Mr. Pike: I shall be very brief, as the reasons why the new clause should be passed have already been capably put by my hon. Friends.

      891
      I find it deeply regrettable that we should debate the matter yet again this year, and that this year not one Conservative Member has spoken in support of the move that we are debating. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) tried to lead us along many false trails and brought many red herrings into the picture, but we are actually discussing a very simple proposal. I was, however, even more concerned by the implication of the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that Opposition Members were arguing for second best, and should be arguing for nursery education. Both hon. Members know that this is a debate on the Finance Bill, not an education debate. They also know that the Labour party wants a considerable improvement in the provision of nursery education. We shall make that very clear in an appropriate debate. We were not party to the points of view expressed by the hon. Member for Buckingham when he was a Minister at the Department of Education and Science, but I hope that he advocated what he has been advocating today.
      Opposition Members have pointed out that most of the best nursery provision is found in Labour authorities. I must add that I do not know of one—including Lancashire, my own county council—which is satisfied with the service that it is able to provide. They would all like to do much more if the finance were available.
      The new clause might not achieve what we would consider the best possible provision for children—and for parents who wish to work—but it would help by removing tax from workplace nurseries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has pointed out, the amount of money that the tax yields to the Government is in any case so small as not to be worth bothering about.
      As well as enabling parents to pursue a career and to provide income for the family, the new clause would benefit the industries and commercial institutions which provide nursery facilities. They do not do so only for the benefit of their employees; it is to their advantage if those employees return to work. Only 100 or so workplaces provide such facilities at present because many are deterred by the fact that tax will be payable. Employers must consider what package of conditions to offer employees as an incentive and, they hope, to benefit themselves as well. The provision of workplace nurseries will benefit the parent, the family and the institution involved.
      If the new clause is carried, I am certain that there will be an increase in the provision of workplace nurseries. Although we realise that the Government's days may well be numbered, we want to help people to go back to work. There will be a growing need for parents of both sexes to do so. I hope that we shall approve the new clause, stop penalising parents and enable more employers to make such facilities available. That will be of advantage to all parties concerned, and to the nation.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: There have been a number of strong and notable speeches. The Government appreciate the importance of workplace nurseries and of encouraging married women to return to work. My hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and for
      892
      Wyre (Mr. Mans) pointed out that this country has been conspicuously successful in encouraging married women to return to work.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: Why on earth should we encourage married women to return to work? That is pure Socialism. Why should we not encourage them to stay at home and look after their children? We have great problems with hooligans and vandalism because of ill-disciplined children. Why should we not give a financial incentive to mothers to stay at home and look after their children rather than encouraging the Socialist bunkum and junk put forward by the other side?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is being a little hasty if he thinks that I am about to accept the new clause. In fact, I am about to reject it. I was not suggesting that there should be a financial incentive. The burden of my argument will be that if married women want to work and if employers want to employ them, the market will work and employers will pay the necessary wage to encourage married women to return to work.
      The new clauses epitomise one of the dilemmas. A narrower and more focused new clause was moved by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). His new clause would confine tax relief to workplace nurseries. The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) provides for tax relief not just for workplace nurseries but for those who seek to make their own provision for the care of their children at home. I have to reject his new clause on the grounds of cost and of its very large deadweight element.
      The effect of the new clause would be to give a large tax subsidy to people who already employ nannies, thereby making provision for the care of their children at home. However, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has a point. If tax relief is confined narrowly to workplace nurseries, it would result in many inequalities which would not be fair. It would lead to unfairness as between one taxpayer and another.
      The hon. Gentleman has not met all the problems that his new clause would create. It would lead to tax relief being given to families where both parents go out to work and pay someone else to look after their children. No tax relief, however, would be given to families where one or other of the parents chooses not to go out to work but to stay at home and look after the children. If the husband goes out to work, however, the wife may prefer not to spend her time looking after the children. She may prefer to play golf and to employ somebody else to look after the children. Under new clause II, that family could receive a child care allowance. Is that what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed really has in mind? It might be possible for the taxpayer to pay a relative—perhaps a grandparent—to look after the children and to claim tax relief. What about neighbours looking after each other's children, paying each other for doing so and getting tax relief at the same time?
      The new clause is at least to be commended for attempting to face the basic issue of equity as between one taxpayer and another, but the more one looks at the new clause the more one realises that it would lead to further difficulties and problems. Its deadweight cost would amount to about £100 million, before one began to consider whether it would have any effect on behaviour, or

      893
      whether it would encourage people to return to work or make provision for their children in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Hawkins: Is there not a fundamental drawback to workplace nurseries? I find it odd that the Labour party is supporting the idea so strongly because when the mother changes her job the child has to leave the nursery. Surely we should encourage nursery provision regardless of people's jobs or workplace.
      Mr. Lamont: That may well be so.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to the tax relief in the tax system. It is important to realise that the tax system, in certain ways which correspond to the basic tax rules, allows employers certain deductions for the provision of workplace nurseries. Employers can set against profits for corporation tax purposes a wide range of expenditure on their day-to-day running costs, because those costs are regarded as normal business costs for providing facilities and suitable working conditions for employees. They can also get tax allowances for capital expenditure on equipping a workplace nursery. Some employers, such as those in the industrial sector, may also get capital allowances for expenditure on constructing or acquiring a building for a workplace nursery.
      Employers can thus claim a number of reliefs in making workplace nurseries available.
      Because the benefits in kind regulations apply only above an £8,500 threshold, many married women earning less than £8,500 per year are not taxed on the benefit of the workplace nursery. The specific regulations correspond with general reliefs in the tax system and are compatible with our existing system, but they give some encouragement to workplace nurseries. However, our tax system does not—and did not even under a Labour Government —give tax relief to enable people to carry out a particular job. There is no such thing as tax relief to enable someone to do a job. Expenses in the performance of a job may be tax deductible, but expenses to put someone in a position to carry out a job are not tax deductible. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that over the years there has been enormous pressure to make travel-to-work expenses tax deductible. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) gave that away when he talked about people going to work in buses provided by employers. That is taxable, and so it should be because it is a very considerable benefit in kind. Governments of both parties have always taken the view that we should not provide tax relief for expenses that enable people to carry out their jobs.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is under a number of misapprehensions. First, there is no special "nursery tax". The benefit of an employer-subsidised nursery place is subject to income tax in exactly the same way as other benefits in kind provided by an employer. Secondly, it is not a new tax. Such benefits have been within the charging rules since they were first introduced by the Labour party more than 40 years ago. Thirdly, the charge is not in any sense disproportionate because a place at a subsidised workplace nursery can be a very considerable benefit. It can certainly run into hundreds of pounds, and over a year it may be worth more that £1.000 to an employee.
      894
      In principle, an employee's tax bill should not be based on the extent to which he is paid in cash or in kind. All employees should be taxed on the same basis. If an employee pays tax on the benefit of child care provided by an employer, that treatment is entirely consistent and fair to the vast majority of employees who have to pay for child care out of taxed income. I do not believe that new clause 9 would be universally welcomed. It would not be welcomed by the many working parents who arrange their own child care and pay for it out of taxed income.
      Secondly, the new clause provides only for employees. There would be nothing for the self-employed. There is nothing for employees whose employers provide other forms of assistance with child care, such as making contributions to places in community nurseries or for child-minding. It would provide nothing for families who prefer to leave their children with a relative or child-minder and nothing for families who arrange their affairs so that children can be cared for at home.
      The inequities in the Labour party's approach are self-evident. Labour Members are also arguing that we should give tax relief to enable people to be in a position to carry out their job. The tax system has never done that before. We have not done that with expenses for travel to work in the past. There is no reason to believe that the present tax treatment of child care expenses is a barrier to the employment of women with children.
      There has been a large increase in the number of women who work and the evidence is that the number of workplace nurseries is growing all the time. Employers are providing such nurseries because they want to recruit labour. We hear about the demographic changes. If employers want to employ married women, they will pay the rate the market demands and ensure that married women are in a position to return to work and are provided with the facilities to enable them to do so. New clause 9 is riddled with anomalies and would be a major inconsistency in the tax system.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Our debate on the important new clause has been marked by strong speeches from many of my hon. Friends. It has also been marked by two quite remarkable contributions from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Both of them argued for universal nursery education and said that we should propose good nursery education provision for all children. Of course the Labour party agrees with that. We have been arguing that for many a long year and—
      Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Smith: No, because time is short.
      Hon. Members: Give way.
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Smith: Conservative Members support a Government who have done everything in their power to make it difficult for local authorities to provide good nursery education and nursery provision for the under-fives. I am pleased and proud to say that all the 24 top local authorities in terms of the provision of nursery education are Labour controlled. They are the authorities which provide good quality nursery education.
      We should be looking, of course, for universal provision. It would be a range of provision provided by

      895
      local authorities, voluntary agencies and employers as well. Simply to say that Labour is interested only in workplace nurseries provided by employers is wholly to misinterpret and misunderstand what we are arguing. We are arguing clearly for the removal of the tax on workplace nurseries as part of the overall solution to the problem of inadequate childcare. It is not the whole answer, but it is part of the answer and it would be a step along the road to improvement.
      The Financial Secretary put two arguments. First, he said that there was no such thing as a relief for expenses to put oneself into a position to do a job. If that is so, I must ask him why on earth clauses 50, 51 and 52 are included in the Bill. They provide precisely such a relief for expenses to put oneself into a position to do a job. We are asking only for the same treatment for mothers who have to take up a workplace nursery place to enable them to do a job.
      Secondly, the Financial Secretary said that workplace nursery provision was treated in exactly the same way as other benefits. When it is treated in the same way as subsidised canteens, sports grounds and business lunches, we shall agree with him, but such benefits are not subject to the tax to which workplace nursery provision is subject.
      We are arguing for the simple removal of a tax which acts as a disincentive to women playing their full part in our economy. Not only does it discourage women from playing a part by going to work; it deprives children by preventing them from gaining the full experience from which they might otherwise benefit.
      The real face of the Conservative party was revealed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who said that there should be a financial incentive for mothers to stay at home. We strongly disagree. We want to ensure that more women can join the work force and play a full part in our national life if they want to, and the new clause represents a small step towards achieving that goal.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 273.

      Division No. 293]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Caborn, Richard

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Anderson, Donald

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashton, Joe

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Clay, Bob

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Beith, A. J.

      Coleman, Donald

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

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

      Cousins, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cox, Tom

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cryer, Bob

      Blair, Tony

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Boateng, Paul

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Boyes, Roland

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Darling, Alistair

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Buckley, George J.

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

      896

      Dewar, Donald

      Martlew, Eric

      Dixon, Don

      Maxton, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Meacher, Michael

      Doran, Frank

      Meale, Alan

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michael, Alun

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Eastham, Ken

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morley, Elliott

      Fearn, Ronald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W''shawe)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Flynn, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Murphy, Paul

      Foster, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foulkes, George

      O'Brien, William

      Fraser, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Galbraith, Sam

      Parry, Robert

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Patchett, Terry

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Pendry, Tom

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Gould, Bryan

      Prescott, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Radice, Giles

      Grocott, Bruce

      Randall, Stuart

      Hardy, Peter

      Redmond, Martin

      Haynes, Frank

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Henderson, Doug

      Reid, Dr John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Richardson, Jo

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Home Robertson, John

      Robertson, George

      Hood, Jimmy

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Howells, Geraint

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Illsley, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Ingram, Adam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Kennedy, Charles

      Stott, Roger

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Strang, Gavin

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Straw, Jack

      Lambie, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lamond, James

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Turner, Dennis

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Vaz, Keith

      Lewis, Terry

      Wall, Pat

      Litherland, Robert

      Walley, Joan

      Livsey, Richard

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      McAllion, John

      Wig ley, Dafydd

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McCartney, Ian

      Wilson, Brian

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Winnick, David

      McFall, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McKelvey, William

      Worthington, Tony

      McLeish, Henry

      Wray, Jimmy

      McNamara, Kevin

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Madden, Max

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Alexander, Richard

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      897

      Allason, Rupert

      Forth, Eric

      Amess, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Amos, Alan

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Arbuthnot, James

      Franks, Cecil

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Ashby, David

      French, Douglas

      Atkins, Robert

      Fry, Peter

      Atkinson, David

      Gale, Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Gardiner, George

      Baldry, Tony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gill, Christopher

      Batiste, Spencer

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gow, Ian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bottom ley, Peter

      Gregory, Conal

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Ground, Patrick

      Bowis, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hague, William

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brazier, Julian

      Hannam, John

      Bright, Graham

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

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

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Harris, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hayes, Jerry

      Burns, Simon

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Burt, Alistair

      Hayward, Robert

      Butcher, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butler, Chris

      Heddle, John

      Butterfill, John

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hill, James

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cash, William

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Irvine, Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irving, Charles

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jack, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Jackson, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Janman, Tim

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, David

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

      Key, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kilfedder, James

      Day, Stephen

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Dicks, Terry

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knowles, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Knox, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Durant, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Latham, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Fallon, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Favell, Tony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lightbown, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Lilley, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      898

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lord, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Renton, Tim

      McCrindle, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Maclean, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Shelton, Sir William

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Shersby, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mans, Keith

      Speller, Tony

      Maples, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marek, Dr John

      Stern, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stevens, Lewis

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sumberg, David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thorne, Neil

      Mills, Iain

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Tredinnick, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trippier, David

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Trotter, Neville

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Walden, George

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waller, Gary

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Ward, John

      Mudd, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Neubert, Michael

      Watts, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wells, Bowen

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Norris, Steve

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wilshire, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip .

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Paice, James

      Wolfson, Mark

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wood, Timothy

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Yeo, Tim

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Price, Sir David

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Raffan, Keith

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the debate that has just finished, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made an unwarranted attack on me without giving me notice that he intended to do so. His attack was wholly unjustified. The archaic views that he attributed to me have never been mine and have never been expressed by me. Perhaps he will come to the Dispatch Box and apologise.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. I mistook him for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), although how I could have done so I fail to understand. My mistake reflected badly on the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). As you know,

      899
      Mr. Speaker, I have already apologised to you and sent a note to Hansard to ensure that the record of my intentions is correct.
      Mr. Speaker: On that happy note, we should move on.

    New Clause 18

      SPECIAL CAR TAX
      'All motor vehicles subject to the 10 per cent special car tax shall when sold with exhaust systems complying with the relevant EC Directive on emission standards be eligible for a rebate of up to 20 per cent of the said special car tax.'.—[Mr. Roger King.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Roger King: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Environmental matters give rise to much concern these days and have attracted a wide range of attention and many remedies as how best to tackle the challenge that they pose. One of the foremost examples of our determination to tackle some of the problems of the environment is the introduction of lead-free petrol, which is now widely supported and used by most motorists—probably as a result of the financial incentives that the Government have seen fit to introduce, amounting now to about 10p per gallon. About 20 per cent. of the motoring population now use lead-free petrol, and 1 warmly welcome that.
      There is a great deal of argument about how effective this simple measure has been in reducing pollution. A few years ago it became a requirement to remove most of the lead from leaded petrol anyway, but we shall all reap the benefits from this small but significant step forward. There is no doubt that encouragement in the form of a reduction in the price of petrol has played a significant part in persuading the motorist to make the change.
      The introduction of lead-free petrol is a small step along the road to an environmentally cleaner atmosphere. European legislation is making it mandatory for most cars built after 1992—we brought that date forward by one year—to have catalytic systems fitted to their exhaust systems to remove further exhaust impurities. That has been agreed by all the member states and there is nothing now to stop us fitting those systems to cars as early as we can. Some countries within the European Community have already done so, notably Germany, which has been seeking in the past few years to change to cars equipped with those exhaust emission control devices by offering very strong financial incentives to the purchasers of cars fitted with them.
      The increase in the cost of the vehicle when fitted with proper exhaust emission devices is significant. Of course, it will vary depending upon the size of the engine fitted, but it will, for instance, cost about £289 to fit a single stage catalyst on the exhaust system of a Rover Group Mini, whereas on bigger cars it will cost much more, and sums of £800 have been commonly put about as being the extra cost involved.
      New clause 18 gives further encouragement to the purchasers to specify that they want cars fitted with the catalytic devices sooner than when required under the
      900
      Europan legislation. Most United Kingdom manufacturers can produce cars with those exhaust systems fitted —which, of course, they will have to do in any case within a short period. There is no need for us to delay any further. We need not wait until 1992. We can start to sell those cars now. In fact, many manufacturers are already offering cars fitted with such devices. However, customers have to pay a penalty for cleaning up the atmosphere and playing their part in reducing exhaust emissions.
      Surely a Government who have taken such a significant lead in environmental measures and in reducing the price of lead-free petrol would wish to extend that lead into encouraging the fitting of these far more elaborate devices to cars so as to tackle the problems of pollution once and for all. Some of us would take the view that we were merely moving the goalposts a little, because even with catalytic converters all that cars do is to convert various poisonous gases into so-called harmless carbon dioxide. Yet we all know that the carbon dioxide build-up in our atmosphere, which is possibly creating the greenhouse effect, is probably just as disadvantageous as other exhaust emissions which occur without catalytic converters being fitted to cars. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction as carbon dioxide is significantly less damaging to the environment than other pollutants that come out of car exhaust systems.
      If we offer that modest financial incentive of 20 per cent. of the special car tax, which is a penalty that the British car purchaser has to pay, that would be a small but not insignificant factor in encouraging motorists to specify that catalytic converters be fitted to their cars when they buy them. The special car tax is something that the motor industry imagined—perhaps in error—was to be a short-term measure when the original purchase tax was phased out. The Government of the day decided that they wished to maintain their revenue and introduced a 10 per cent. car tax. On top of that, 15 per cent. value added tax was added. The motor industry has long hoped that that special car tax, which is more or less unique within Europe, would be phased out gradually over the years so that we could establish a regime of taxation on motor vehicles similar to that which obtains throughout most of the European Community. As 1992 approaches, of course we shall wish to harmonise our tax regime with those in the rest of Europe.
      The rebate is a small step, but on a £10,000 car the sort of concession that the new clause advocates would cost perhaps £200. It would cost, for instance, £289 to fit a catalytic converter to a Mini. By allowing that 20 per cent. on the special car tax, the Government will in effect be giving the consumer £80 to encourage him or her to buy a car fitted with a converter. That is not a generous amount, but it is a significant indicator that when it comes to environmental issues the Government mean business.
      Such a sweeping change may mean that the Government will have to consider at length the desirability of adopting such a measure, which would be widely encouraged by the motor industry. Many European car manufacturers already fit catalytic exhaust systems—certainly they do in Germany—and if British manufacturers could be encouraged to fit them sooner rather than later, economies of scale would be geared up for the time when the fitting of such devices is mandatory, in 1992. The Government should consider carefully this modest

      901
      measure, which carries on from the bold initiative of reducing the cost of lead-free petrol and should be widely supported.
      Sir Hal Miller: Now is not the time, although certainly it is the place, to debate the motor industry's detailed complaints about the special car tax and the way that the industry has, in its view, been singled out for the most unfair and prejudicial treatment. I shall not rehearse those arguments, except in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), whose initiative in proposing the new clause I value highly, as it makes a significant contribution to the debate on motor vehicle pollution.
      Value added tax is based on the basic price of the car plus the special car tax, so it is a tax on a tax. As we move towards 1992 and the approximation of motor vehicle taxation, I shall use the debate on the proposed new clause to explore the mind of my hon. Friend the Minister as to how the future motor vehicle tax regime will operate. The Commission proposes that we should move to a regime of value added taxes and dispense with other and, in many cases, higher taxes. The suggestion is that value added tax should be levied at the rate applying in the purchaser's country, which would be determined by the vehicle's country of registration.
      Britain's special car tax is a form of sales tax and should be included in the VAT, which may need to be adjusted for that purpose. As we move towards 1992, it is important to decide how motor vehicle taxation is to operate. Manufacturers need to proceed on the basis of certain assumptions, because their model policy is determined some years in advance.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield referred eloquently to the environmental benefits of catalytic converters, to the precedent set by the lower excise on unleaded petrol, and to the efforts of other European countries—notably West Germany—to expedite the fitting of converters. There has been a good deal of propaganda from catalytic converter manufacturers that their cost is not at all what others state it to be, and that it has been greatly exaggerated. It is a matter not just of the cost of the metal in the catalyst box. One cannot run a catalyst without an engine management system, which is where a large element of the expenditure comes, quite apart from the later costs to the consumer arising from maintenance and fitment.
      There is much uncertainty about the cost of maintaining the catalysts and their lifespan. On a recent visit to a car manufacturer that had fitted catalysts, I was given lifespans ranging from 25,000 miles to 100,000 miles. There is much uncertainty about the frequency with which they need to be replaced. It is worth bearing in mind that they cannot be serviced; they must be junked and then one starts again. That means taking off the whole exhaust system, and those of us who have had to replace those systems know what is involved.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and I are trying to encourage our friends in the Government to consider the introduction of some incentive in the shape of a reduction in the additional cost incurred by fitting catalysts. We carefully did not pitch the amount of the incentive but gave a band that could be considered. Such an incentive would encourage the earlier and wider use of catalysts. It would be for the benefit of the environment
      902
      and would be a powerful incentive for our manufacturers to bring themselves up to date on a fully competitive continental basis.
      10.30 pm
      Dr. John Marek: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). The Opposition would welcome it if he put his name down for the Finance Bill Committee next year. We have discussions year in, year out on excise duties and other taxation on vehicles and not a Conservative Back Bencher who has any knowledge of the subject will stand up and take issue with us so that we can make the policies and duties better suited to Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that request seriously.
      The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that the Government mean business on environmental issues. If it had been left to the Government, we would not have had an agreement on catalytic converters or clean car engines. That was forced on the Government by the European Community, and we must get that point clear.
      The Opposition are passionately pro-environment, and we sympathise with the basic aim of the new clause. We take issue, however, with the method chosen. As we must change our exhaust systems and introduce catalytic converters in a few years' time, what is the point of having an incentive? I do not understand the rationale behind the speeches of the hon. Members for Northfield and for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller). The incentive is unnecessary.
      The difficulty is—I am sure that the Economic Secretary will say the same—that if an allowance is made for catalytic converters, the Treasury will be inundated with pleas for allowances for all sorts of additions to cars. Many kinds of transport systems will be fair game for different people with different interests.
      Sir Hal Miller: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the logic of his argument escapes me. I do not recollect his opposing the incentive of the reduction in the excise duty to encourage the greater use of lead-free petrol. I am sorry if, in my anxiety to be quick, I did not make it plain that the purpose of the new clause is to speed up the introduction of catalysts.
      Dr. Marek: The two issues are very different. There is always a choice between leaded and unleaded petrol, at least for some cars. I have recently seen something called "super leaded" in garages. It costs the same as unleaded, but I wonder whether petrol companies will continue to rip off motorists by charging high prices.
      There is no question of providing an incentive to fit catalytic converters. It has to be done. We have agreed it with the EC. There are cases for incentives in certain circumstances, but they should be argued on their merits. I regret that I have to say that I do not think that the case has been proven here. I would rather that the money which would be lost to the Treasury were spent on other environmental concerns.
      How much does the Economic Secretary think the Treasury would lose if the new clause were accepted? Can he think of better environmental uses for the money? I sympathise with the new clause, but I think that it is the wrong approach.
      Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the House joins me in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Binningham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller),

      903
      who have always been lively advocates of the interests of the British motor car industry and who today have wedded that interest to their concern for the environment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield mentioned the success of the increased reliefs and changes in the treatment of two-star petrol in the Budget. It has been immensely successful—more successful than I expected at the time. The latest figures, at 14 June, show that unleaded petrol sales account for 20·6 per cent. of the whole as compared with only 5·5 per cent. the month before the Budget, and that more than 50 per cent. of filling stations sell it as against about 22 per cent. earlier this year.
      My hon. Friend drew an analogy between that and the tax relief proposed in new clause 18, but I do not think that the analogy is valid. Excise duty applies to all cars, not just new ones, and there is no mandatory use of unleaded petrol in the offing. Those are my reasons for suggesting that the House should not accept the new clause. The benefit that is proposed offers a remission of an element of car tax which is levied only on new cars. The incentive would therefore apply only to the installation of catalytic converters in new cars. In 1992, however, such installation will be compulsory for all new cars sold in the EC, and I imagine that before then it will be normal for them to be fitted as producers gear up with new models. We are being asked to introduce a tax relief for a short time only, and one which applies only to new cars. Tax reliefs should always be introduced with caution and I am not minded to recommend to the House a relief with a short life and relatively little coverage.
      Both my hon. Friends, but especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, mentioned their resentment at the existence of a special car tax. At least 10 EC countries have a higher rate of value added tax, or a registration tax, if not a special car tax like ours, so the tax is by no means abnormal. Our VAT and the special car tax is similar to what is charged in other countries.
      Sir Hal Miller: While my hon. Friend is dealing with the practice of our EEC partners, will he answer my question about what is to happen in future? Will the car tax be subsumed in VAT?
      Mr. Lilley: I apologise for not responding to that specific point without prompting. The Commissioner has put forward proposals which are being considered by the Government. They acknowledge that special consideration
      904
      will have to be given to items such as car tax on motor vehicles. The general presumption is that they would be rendered uniform. However, we have tried to work out proposals in general which will not require central bureaucratic determination of tax rates in individual countries and will leave as much discretion to individual countries as possible while removing any unnecessary fiscal controls at frontiers. That is the line that we are pushing, but we are a long way from achieving the unanimity that is required on that issue in the Community.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked what the proposal would cost. It would cost about £3 million in revenue forgone for every 1 per cent. of motor cars which took advantage of the incentive and had the equipment fitted. Obviously, one has no idea how many would do so, but as 1992 approached a great many cars would be so fitted, not in response to the incentive but in anticipation of the time when it would become mandatory. We should thus have to bear the cost with no extra benefit. That is one reason why I am not urging the House to accept the new clause.
      We accept that the new clause seeks to encourage producers and car drivers to recognise the value of such equipment from an environmental point of view and seriously to consider voluntarily insisting on their incorporation in any new vehicle which they may buy ahead of 1992. 1 welcome that spirit, but I hope that the new clause will not be pressed to a vote.
      Mr. Roger King: I have listened, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) will have done, with a great deal of interest in the hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary would give us some encouragement to the effect that our proposals met with some enthusiasm. I understand the problems of introducing a further tax incentive such as this. The aim of the new clause was simply to give some added impetus to what will obviously happen anyway in 1992. It would have shown clearly that we wished to proceed faster rather than slower along the lines of the EEC proposal.
      Despite the unbridled optimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and myself that we would have the Opposition's support in this matter, it is clear that they have no bottle for a fight on this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 20

      FIRST-YEAR ALLOWANCES FOR SHIPS
      'In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 1984 after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs:—
      "(c) with respect to capital expenditure incurred on or after 1st April 1989 on the provision of ships, the words 'one-half;
      and before the words 'no first-year allowances' there shall be added the words 'subject to sub-paragraph (c) above'.
      (d) in its application to capital expenditure incurred on or after 1st April 1989 on the provision of ships section 44(4)(a) of the Finance Act 1971 shall have effect as if the word 'or' at the end of sub-paragraph (i) were omitted and as if sub-paragraph (ii) were omitted.".'.—[Mr. Shore.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I know that new clause 20 has support in all quarters of the House. That is self-evident from the names of the right hon. and hon. Members who have joined me in tabling it. Anxiety about the disastrous decline of the British merchant fleet has been expressed in the Chamber on many occasions in recent years. No fewer than 234 hon. Members have put their names to early-day motion 429 which, among other things, urges
      "the primary importance, with an ageing fleet, of the early provision of fiscal and other measures to encourage British shipping companies to undertake the substantial re-investment in ships which will be needed if the decline of the British-owned and controlled merchant fleet is not to accelerate again over the years immediately ahead."
      New clause 20 proposes the reintroduction of a 50 per cent. first-year allowance for capital expenditure on new ships. The much-reduced British-owned shipping fleet is steadily aging, and assistance with the heavy cost of replacement is essential if we are to avoid a further decline, let alone reverse the trend of the past decade or so.
      10.45 pm
      With a record Budget surplus that is likely to be repeated—certainly this year—I do not think that the cost is of real concern to the Treasury. According to the Inland Revenue's own gloomy estimates, with which the Select Committee on Transport was provided last year, the cost of an additional 50 per cent. investment allowance was expected to rise to a maximum of £200 million a year for a two-year period, and then to decline to about £90 million by 1995–96. Our proposal is more modest: it is not additional to the existing 25 per cent. allowance, but in place of it. That will cost not £200 million a year at the peak, but more like £140 million.
      The principal objection rehearsed by Treasury spokesmen on previous occasions when help for the shipping industry has been discussed is that the introduction of investment allowances runs counter to the general thrust of the Government's corporation tax policy, the general effect of which has been to reduce the rate of corporation tax on profits substantially and at the same time to abolish allowances against capital expenditure. I do not propose to challenge that general philosophy tonight, but I should like to state as strongly as I can why I believe that shipping should be the exception to the corporation tax rule.
      First, world shipping markets are not free. Governments intervene, in varying degrees, in capital and crew costs, and many reserve some part of their trade for
      906
      their own nationals. Third world countries have their own special shipping regime; the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and China subsidise their shipping on a massive scale; the United States protects its own merchant navy. In the European Community there is no common shipping policy. Most European Community countries assist their own shipping industries with many forms of subsidies, grants, tax concessions and the like. Let me give just one example: German shipowners have the benefit of accelerated depreciation, investment grants and very low interest rates. Not surprisingly, there is twice as much tonnage on order for the West German register as for the United Kingdom register today.
      There is, therefore, no level playing field in European or world shipping. To refrain from assisting our own shipping industry with its replacement costs is not to operate a hands-off, non-interventionist policy, but positively to discriminate against our own shipping. It is a profound paradox that the United Kingdom, an island nation more dependent on shipping for its imports and exports than any other European country, should—virtually alone among the west European nations— offer no protection or assistance to its merchant fleet.
      My second reason for urging the Government to accept the new clause is the direct contribution that British-owned shipping makes to the country's overseas earnings. When the 1984 Budget removed the British shipping industry's main tax incentives to invest, the balance of payments was remarkably healthy. Unhappily, that is no longer the case. We now face massive deficits. The shipping industry is still a major earner of foreign exchange—the third largest invisible earner after financial services and tourism—and there is a close correlation between its foreign exchange earnings and the size of the fleet. An enlarged United Kingdom-owned fleet would generate, or save, much of the additional foreign exchange that the country so badly needs.
      My third reason is that our Merchant Navy is essential to the nation's defence during a period of tension or war. It gives direct support to the military, it is essential for the rapid reinforcement of Europe from North America, and is crucial for the continuing economic re-supply of the civil population and industry in a period of conflict. The United Kingdom fleet has already shrunk to a level where all three tasks can no longer be undertaken. This was broadly the conclusion of the Select Committee on Defence in its report last year and is the subject now of a major NATO study.
      There is one other negative argument that the Minister may be tempted to deploy: that investment allowances, before their abolition in 1984, did not prevent the rapid rundown of the United Kingdom's Merchant Navy. True; but it is difficult to think of any measure that would have prevented a substantial decline in United Kingdom and, indeed, in world shipping in the decade of severe recession that is now ending.
      At the end of 1985, the year after the abolition of capital investment allowances, 7·5 per cent. of world shipping was laid up. Today that figure is down to 1 per cent. Freight rates are improving; shipbuilding capacity has, tragically, been sharply reduced; the world fleet is aging; and it is clear that a large part of the existing world fleet will have to be replaced over the next decade.
      The effects of this can be seen in the sharp rise in the price of both new and second-hand ships. The key question for the shipping entrepreneur is how the

      907
      enormous capital costs of replacement can be financed —which depends in turn on the fiscal regimes applied by the Government for such investment, because this is the major variable in capital costs.
      We have now a major opportunity to revive our merchant fleet. Strengthening the incentives to invest in ships will enable the United Kingdom to gain a substantial share of new shipping to overcome the handicaps of unfair competition, to strengthen the balance of payments and to help maintain the credibility of our defences against the threat of conventional war.
      The maintenance of a large, modern and efficient Merchant Navy is essential to the well-being and security of an island nation. I do not believe that the Government would dispute that assertion. I urge them therefore to accept the proposal in new clause 20.
      Sir William Clark: I support the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He has pointed out the importance of the shipping industry to our invisible earnings. I have no vested interests in the shipping industry. The United Kingdom is unable to compete with other countries in many ways. At one time the shipping industry benefited from the free depreciation allowance, but it has now disappeared. The 25 per cent. depreciation allowance has taken its place.
      I well understand why my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will say that because corporation tax has been reduced to its present level capital allowances must be reduced, too. The shipping industry, however, is in a slightly different position. It is one of the most competitive international commodities, if it be a commodity, that there is. Shipowners in other member states of the European Community are provided with far better allowances.
      The new clause provides for a 50 per cent. capital allowance. There would be no loss of revenue. The shipping industry faces a cash flow problem. If one cannot obtain a capital allowance of 50 per cent., the capital that is required to buy a ship will put British shipowners at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their foreign competitors. In 1992 the United Kingdom's capital allowances will probably be the least advantageous of all.
      The Government should take another look at shipping. It may be too late at Report stage of this Finance Bill to do something about it, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give some assurance that the Government are seized of the importance of the shipping industry and are aware that our competitors are far more generous to their shipping industries than we are, although our corporation tax has decreased.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to the surplus in our domestic budget. I am not suggesting that we should spend that, but the shipping industry has a cash flow problem. If our shipowners could buy a ship with a 50 per cent. rather than a 25 per cent. allowance, it would put the nation in a better competitive position. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the new clause sympathetically.
      The size of our merchant fleet has continued to decrease and I can give the statistics to show that. As an island nation we depend on our shipping industry for more than our defence. Let us encourage British shipping rather than allow foreign shipowners to move our goods in and out of
      908
      our ports because they have better fiscal arrangements than we have. For those reasons, I support the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: As is often the case, we find ourselves late at night discussing important matters, but if the hour is late, the quality of the first two speeches makes up for it. I am honoured to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark).
      I used to work as a management consultant and many of my clients were shipyards. As I spoke at length in Committee I shall add only a few brief points. Other countries provide advantages for their shipping industries in many ways that we do not. Besides the visible methods of assistance, including capital allowances, tax-free reserves, advantages in personal taxation to seafarers, and direct Government subsidies and grants, which together ensure that we have a higher effective rate of tax on shipping, whatever the nominal rate, than most other countries, there are three hidden ones.
      First, safety is expensive and many of our competitors are not interested in it. That immediately gives an unavoidable handicap to our shipowners because no one wants dangerous British ships. Secondly, some seafarers in foreign merchant navies are disgracefully badly paid. That is another unavoidable handicap for us. Thirdly, considerable amounts of cargo reservations are sometimes legally enforced and at other times achieved through back-door arrangements.
      Our shipowners operate with considerable fiscal and other handicaps. It is sad that as a result of those considerable handicaps the British merchant fleet has not only declined—nearly every merchant fleet has—but declined compared with other fleets. The Greeks have by far the biggest fleet in Europe, but there is no taxation on Greek shipowners, except a minuscule tonnage tax.
      I share the Government's distaste for capital allowances as a normal medium for industry. I wrote a pamphlet calling for the abolition of capital allowances and all forms of regional capital grants some years before it became the fashion. However, it seems to me inescapable that shipping is a special case. If we want to restore British shipping to even part of its former standing, we must face up to these handicaps and to the enormous difference between the way in which we treat our shipowners and the way in which other countries treat theirs.
      11 pm
      I do not want to go into all the reasons why it is important to restore shipping, because they have already been well covered by the two previous speakers, but I will mention two reasons briefly. First, besides the immediate effects of shipping, there are many peripheral areas that bring in considerable foreign exchange, such as the Baltic exchange and the shipping insurance side of Lloyd's. They require a captive domestic market if they are to continue to bring in the considerable export earnings they bring in at present, which are over and above the export earnings mentioned for shipping itself.
      Secondly, I echo again the defence considerations—my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary would be surprised if I did not—which are real. The arrival of the NATO report on strategic shipping is becoming rather like the second coming. However, it will come at some point

      909
      and it is common knowledge that it is certain to show that NATO has insufficient for its needs in times of tension, let alone war.
      I sum up by saying that two early-day motions—one in the previous Parliament and one in this—have shown that the majority of Back Benchers of all political persuasions are concerned about the issue. Two Select Committees—on Transport and on Defence—have expressed real worries on the matter. I put it to my right hon. Friend that if he finds new clause 20 unacceptable for one reason or another, we must look at what we can do for our shipping. If we stand back and do nothing and, in effect, say unilaterally that we believe in the free market and not in intervention—while almost every other country with a significant fleet is intervening and supporting its fleet—the little temporary recovery we have in shipping, which gives us a bit of a breathing space, will disappear and our merchant fleet will continue to decline.
      Sir Charles Morrison: It may be surprising that an hon. Member representing a wholly land-locked, largely rural constituency receives two or three letters a year expressing concern about the inadequate size of our merchant fleet, yet that is my lot. I have several constituents who are still well aware that we are an island race and that we depend to a considerable extent for our existence on shipping and overseas trade. If our country were a vast, land-locked area which was entirely self-supporting, we could perhaps disregard the need for a merchant fleet and even go further and say to ourselves that not having a merchant fleet of our own would help developing countries. That concept, however, does not exist for us. As my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) have pointed out, we are all aware that we remain an island. We may soon he attached more closely to continental Europe by means of the Channel tunnel, but a huge proportion of the basis of our national existence will still depend on shipping.
      I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary can argue that a merchant fleet is unnecessary. Indeed, he has not argued that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South pointed out, it is important in terms of allowances that we should be able to compete with the assistance that shipping receives in other countries. There has been a pretty continuous deterioration in the size of our merchant fleet. That in my view is shameful, but, regardless of that, I believe that from a strategic point of view we are putting ourselves in an increasingly weak and dangerous position.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take full account of the new clause. For all I know, it may not be properly drafted and may need further thought, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least express some sympathy with the proposition behind it.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was right to remind the House of the strategic importance of shipping and, indeed, shipbuilding to our country. As a number of hon. Members have perceptively pointed out, our country is an island, and the conveyance of goods by sea is therefore important to us—indeed, 92 per cent. of out trade is carried in ships. I should have thought that it was fairly clear to everybody, therefore, that shipping has a
      910
      unique place in our island's economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney asks the Treasury to recognise that unique place. I suspect that the Treasury will not do so. I say that because we have explored this matter before.
      Help for shipping, needed though it is, is not the same as help for domestic shipbuilding, needed though that is. Although the EEC has no common policy on shipping, it certainly has one on shipbuilding. That is embodied in the sixth directive on shipbuilding, which provides for intervention funding for some merchant yards in the different member states.
      The new clause would not necessarily mean that those who availed themselves of the tax concession would order new vessels in British yards, because they could purchase abroad or purchase secondhand ships. The new clause would not necessarily help the domestic merchant shipbuilding industry, which is certainly in need of help. Just about the only chance of survival for our merchant shipbuilding industry lies in relocating to Northern Ireland.
      The shipping industry is deserving and worthy of support, and the new clause has considerable merit. I was taken by the statement of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that he had acted as a consultant for a number of shipyards. That alone does not explain the serious crisis that British shipbuilding faces; the explanation has to be sought elsewhere. I am able to name the guilty man—the man responsible for closing down merchant yards when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry and for starving warship yards of defence orders when he was Minister of State for Defence Procurement. That man is, of course, the Financial Secretary, and he will no doubt reply to the debate by telling the shipping industry that it will not receive the assistance that every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate says it so badly requires.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has a long-standing interest in shipping and speaks with great authority. Some months ago, he came to see me about a specific tax matter, which might have been dealt with in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman argued vigorously against the proposal because of the effects that he thought it might have on the shipping industry. Having listened to representations from the right hon. Gentleman and others, we decided not to proceed with that tax change. I hope that that experience will at least have confirmed him in the view that we try to listen and are not indifferent to the plight of the United Kingdom shipping industry.
      The new clause would introduce a special 50 per cent. first year allowance for capital expenditure incurred on or after 1 April 1989 in the provision of a ship, whether new or second hand. It would permit also a writing-down allowance to be taken for the same period, thus providing allowances totalling 621/2 per cent. in the year of acquisition instead of the 25 per cent. that would otherwise normally be available.
      As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney well knows, the issue of accelerated depreciation for ships is by no means new. It was discussed at considerable length in the Finance Bill debates in 1984 and 1985. Clauses with the same objective were tabled in 1986 and 1987. There was a further debate when last year's Finance Bill was considered in Committee, when a nearly

      911
      exactly similar proposal to that in the new clause was not accepted. As we had the issue raised in almost exactly the same form from 1984 to 1988, it is not surprising that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was able to anticipate many of the arguments on which I rely.
      We also debated these issues when my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) introduced an amendment that sought that a balancing charge arising on the disposal of a ship should be rolled forward and relieved from tax provided that the proceeds of the disposal were reinvested within up to four years. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has recognised, relief on these would reintroduce to the system a significant measure of accelerated depreciation. The new clause would go further still by allowing the entire cost of a ship to be written down to a residual 10 per cent. over five years or so. As ships are long-life assets with working lives greatly in excess of five years—perhaps 18 to 20 years, on average—a depreciation system that provided allowances on the scale that is proposed would constitute a substantial element of acceleration.
      The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney recognised that our reform of corporation tax is based on the reduction of allowances to 25 per cent. per annum, combined with the reduction in the rate of corporation tax, with the result that the rate of corporation tax is the lowest in Europe and one of the lowest in the industrialised world. That is something that very much affects most industries, including the shipping industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and I debated these matters extensively when the Bill was being considered in Standing Committee. He argued that perhaps the more marginally profitable shipping industries were better off under a system of allowances than a lower rate of corporation tax combined with smaller allowances. I in turn argued that the Government believe that the purpose of the tax system should be to encourage profitable investment and profitable industries and not merely the marginally profitable or the near loss makers.
      Sir William Clark: The fact that these matters were debated from 1984 to 1987 is completely irrelevant. Why is it that the merchant fleet continues to decline? It is far better from a fiscal point of view to have a ship under a foreign flag. Corporation tax is lower here than in many other countries, but the shipping industry is being penalised in Britain when comparisons are made with competitor countries.
      Mr. Lamont: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. I do not believe that the period of the greatest decline in British shipping, to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred, was linked to the tax system. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, even when we had 100 per cent. first-year allowances, that did not halt the dramatic decline of the fleet between 1975 and 1986 from 33 million gross registered tonnes to under 11 million tonnes. Fundamental factors—not tax factors—were in operation, and they were connected with excess capacity and, obviously, with the structure of the British fleet. They played a large part in the decline of the fleet during that period when we had 100 per
      912
      cent. depreciation allowances, and they were unable to stop the decline at the time. There have been structural and capacity factors.
      11.15 pm
      Sir William Clark: On the 100 per cent. allowance, does my right hon. Friend recollect what our corporation tax was?
      Mr. Lamont: People were able to use the 100 per cent. allowance and go on investing, and the actual effective rate of corporation tax was much lower. My hon. Friend is looking extremely puzzled. I am not saying that tax matters are unimportant or have no part to play, but the decline of the British fleet has been due to much more deep-seated reasons than tax alone.
      Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, but his remark does not detract from the new clause. Surely the reasons for the great decline which occurred in every merchant fleet in the world in the 1970s were the deep-seated factors of overcapacity and overinvestment to which my right hon. Friend referred. Now that we have come out of that period of overcapacity, which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) described, the precise reason why other fleets are now expanding while the British one is static—and we are falling as a percentage of the EEC fleet—is this country's fiscal factors, which are different from those in other countries.
      Mr. Lamont: That is open to argument if we say that the reduction in the fleet in the past was due to non-tax reasons, but today we believe that it is due to tax reasons. I do not believe that our tax system leaves shipping at a massive disadvantage. We must look at the tax system in the round. We must compare allowances and rates and also look at local taxes. We must look at the overall fiscal position of one country compared with another. It is not proven that British shipping is at a tax advantage compared with all its competitors. I have given my view of the fundamental factors that have been responsible for the decline in shipping. I do not believe that one can suddenly say that they are different, even though those were the reasons for the decline in the past.
      Sir Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend is missing the point. He is speaking from the Government Front Bench. I put it bluntly that there is no point in arguing a Treasury brief. Hon. Members are concerned about the steady decline in the British merchant fleet. That is what perhaps surprisingly concerns my constituents. They are more and more worried that we are living on an island and our merchant fleet is getting smaller and smaller, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) pointed out. We probably could not even mount a Falklands-type campaign. The situation is getting worse, not better. It is all very well arguing the details from the Treasury Bench, but the Government must consider whether or not we are to have a merchant fleet. What is the answer to that?
      Mr. Lamont: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir. C. Morrison) if I sound too like a Treasury Minister. I have great difficulty in disguising myself on occasions. It is difficult to disguise myself when I am replying to comments about tax and the Finance Bill.

      913
      It is utterly astonishing that I should sound like a Treasury Minister. I apologise unreservedly to my hon. Friend for the disguise that I have put on.
      Of course, I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has said about the strategic importance of merchant shipping and about the importance of the British merchant fleet for defence reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury raised that in Standing Committee when we discussed his amendments. I assured him that we shall bear in mind the recommendations and remarks of the Select Committee on Defence and that the matter will be kept under review. I shall draw the attention of my colleagues in both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport to what has been said.
      The Ministry of Defence very much disagrees with what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has said and believes that it would still be possible today to mount an out-of-area operation involving the British fleet. As my hon. Friend has said, I am a mere Treasury Minister and I can assure him that I should not make that statement without having had some advice from those who know about these matters.
      I have dealt with the fiscal problems as I see them. It has been said that shipping is a slightly different case. I am afraid that all sorts of industries also regard themselves as different, especially capital-intensive industries and the chemical and engineering industries. Even the film industry has a great attachment to capital allowances. I believe that the lower rate of corporation tax, combined with the lower allowances, has been of great benefit to British industry overall. That does not mean that substantial sectors of heavy industry do not raise these issues all the time, but, despite what my hon. Friends have said, it would be extremely difficult to distinguish between shipping and other industries.
      As in the measures that we have taken in other Finance Bills, we have shown here that we are not indifferent to the problems of the shipping industry. Indeed, we made a special relief, through our changes on foreign earnings deductions, to meet some of the problems that had been raised about low-wage seafarers and low-wage competition. We leant over backwards to try to have a tax system that would minimise the disadvantages.
      We have also used the business expansion scheme for both chartering and investment in ships. I have already referred to the representations that we received from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and to the fact that we have listened to those representations as well as to those from shipping when we discussed residence.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, this is not just a tax issue; it is also a defence issue. We are keeping the matter under review, particularly because other Departments are looking at the Select Committee's recommendations. However, I am afraid that, although we will look at the matter in that way, I cannot recommend the acceptance of the new clause, which would go sharply against the thrust of our business tax reforms.
      Mr. Shore: I shall not pretend to conceal my disappointment and frustration, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 23

      CHILD TAX ALLOWANCE
      'In relation to income tax there shall be an allowance of £100 for each dependent child in full time education under the age of nineteen'.—[Mr. Frank Field.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Normally when one moves a new clause, one of the ploys of the Government Front Bench is to point out the inadequacies in the drafting. As I wish to begin and to continue in a conciliatory mood, at least until we get to the vote, any constructive amendments to my draft new clause will be willingly accepted. I am aware that, because of the way in which the new clause is worded, it will exclude children below the school starting age, which was not the intention. An odd amending word could put that right. I am also aware that the present wording does not link the provisions to the Rooker-Wise indexation amendment to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hyphened his name and I am sure that there are other things on which the Opposition would be only too happy to meet the Government.
      I begin by referring briefly to what has been happening to the living standards of families with children and by comparing that with other sections of the community that are childless. To help me to do this, I draw on a note which the Family Policy Studies Centre published today. It looked at two possible ways of measuring how effectively our fiscal and benefit system has looked after those with children. The Government would be right to say that it is wrong to consider the crude tax thresholds because they do not include the tax-free element in child benefit. In place of tax thresholds, the buzz word now is tax break-even points. I do not want to be accused of using an inaccurate measurement, so I shall follow the Government line of break-even points.
      There are two clearly discernible trends in the Government's record over the past decade. I am sure, first, that the Minister will emphasise that the break-even point for all households, whatever their composition, has risen. That has not always been so in the post-war period. But a second pattern emerges from breakdown into households of differing composition. The break-even points have risen faster for those without children than for those with them. So, although the tax burden has been lifted from households that pay tax, it has been lifted most slowly from people with children. The Government have changed the tax burden overall, but it has moved in the past 10 years.
      The Government would also be right to tell us—and Conservative Members who support the new clause—that examining the tax burden is an inadequate way of judging the Government's record on families. We need to look at households' real income, and include transfer payments. The second calculation contained in the briefing note, prepared, needless to say, by the Library, considers the real income of households of different sizes. It also shows an improvement for all households, but differences between those with and those without children. Real income of those not responsible for children have risen faster.
      In the past, the House has had two ways of dealing with the tax burden on and the benefit advantages for families with children. First, we had child tax allowances, then

      915
      child benefit. When the Government made their past two uprating statements, I noticed that some Conservative Members said that, had child tax allowances existed still, the Government would not have got their statements through on a vote. Conservatives would have voted for the reintroduction and increasing of child tax allowances.
      The Government have made it as plain as they can that they will not increase child benefit this side of the next election. The Opposition can therefore go in for gesture politics and insist at every uprating statement that child benefit should be increased, knowing that it will not be. We can then withdraw with our feathers in the air, knowing that families will get nothing. Or we can act more seriously and say that the challange to the Government will grow during this Parliament if they do not uprate child benefit in line with the other tax allowances and benefits that affect the living standards of the people who depend on them.
      I want real, not gesture, politics to prevail. Should we be successful tonight, a future radical Labour Government would be free to move any revenue lost from child tax allowances over to child benefit during their first year of office. In the meantime, we would protect the living standards of families with children, and keep open the option of moving the money over to the child benefit scheme at a later date. That is not a change in direction, but it is one of seeking immediate ways to improve the living standards of families and also to have the option at a later stage of moving those resources over to the child benefit scheme.
      It will not have escaped some hon. Members' attention that before Parliament rises for the summer recess we will be dealing with amendments to the Social Security Bill from the other place, and one of those amendments links child benefit increases to changes in family credit. I am, therefore, anxious that we decide tonight whether the House wishes to go down the road of reintroducing child tax allowances to protect the living standards of families with children or whether, when we come to the vote on the Lords amendment in a week or so, all the energies of those who are interested in ensuring that the House represents the interests of households with children will be supporting the amendment that has been made in the other place.
      Families with children will win either way tonight. We will either carry this amendment in the Lobby, which will mean that we will see the reintroduction of child tax allowances, and that the tax burden will therefore be diminished, or—
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Walden: I ask the hon. Gentleman a question to which I genuinely want an answer. There are people on middle or upper incomes who have had their taxes reduced from 60 to 40 per cent., who are liable to have their rates reduced as a result of the community charge, who still benefit from higher rate mortgage tax relief and who benefit from the non-imposition of VAT on children's shoes, even though they could afford to pay it. Does what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting put yet more money into the pockets of such people?
      Mr. Field: It does, because we are looking at different forms of the distribution of the tax burden. We are looking at it both horizontally and vertically. One way is to look
      916
      at which income groups get relief right up to the income scale and the other is to look at each level of income and to study how the tax burden varies between people who have children and those who have not. We are maintaining both points. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is shaking his head, but the irony is that it was his intervention during one of the speeches on uprating, when he said that the Government would be in real difficulties in getting this package through if there were child tax allowances, which set my mind working.
      Mr. Walden: It was not me.
      Mr. Field: I apologise if it was not the hon. Gentleman and I shall happily withdraw that comment.
      I shall get back to my final point. Families with children will win either way tonight. We will either carry this amendment in the Division Lobby and thereby affect the tax burden of all families with children, whether they be rich or poor, or the House will have made the clear decision that it does not wish to go down that road and, therefore, when the amendment to the Social Security Bill comes back from the other place, there will be no parting of the ways and no arguments put to divert us from the need to ensure that child benefit is regularly uprated.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I support the new clause, which has been so cogently moved by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). We are debating justice between different classes of taxpayers and not the micro or macro economic situation. If we were, I would find myself in some difficulty, because I am in favour of increasing taxes at the present time and not reducing them. I believe that only by increasing taxation can we solve our serious economic problems. However, the Government do not agree with me, so that removes that difficulty.
      Anyway, I am not altogether confident that we shall win the vote tonight, because the Government probably have the support of enough of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have not heard the debate to defeat the motion. Besides, we are discussing a question of principle as between taxpayers.
      Ever since the days of William Pitt, it has been recognised that people with families have higher expenses and more responsibilities than people who do not. The salary system does not, for very understandable reasons, recognise that distinction, so clearly it must be made by the tax system. Much the best way of doing that is through child benefit, but the Government repudiate that on specious, irresponsible and thoroughly inhumane grounds—at a time when they lavish tax cuts on the well-offs and on everyone else.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) jibs at people receiving more money through tax allowances for children but, as far as I know, he and other right hon. and hon. Members—myself included—do not jib at tax cuts that give infinitely more money to the people who concern him. With great respect to my hon. Friend, he does not make a serious point.
      The best way of dealing with families with children is through child benefit, but the Government appear to be anxious to repudiate that argument, judging by their behaviour over the past two years. We are giving the Government a choice. Unless they are against families—tout seul, full stop—they must agree either to uprate child benefit in future or to adopt new clause 23. There is no other choice. Otherwise, the Government will be

      917
      repudiating the experience of everyday life and saying that there is no horizontal difference between taxpayers of similar income.
      Either the Government must come out in favour of child tax allowances, or say, "We thoroughly agree that we behaved very badly, or not very well, over child benefit, and we shall never do that again." If the Government will say that, then of course I will not support the new clause in the Lobby tonight. I have a feeling that the Government will not say that, in which case I shall support new clause 23. Either the Government are in favour of child tax allowances or they are in favour of child benefit. To say that they are against both would be totally irresponsible and quite indefensible.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: In supporting the new clause, I say at the outset that I did not think that I would ever again speak in this House in support of the reintroduction of child tax allowances. Over a period of 10 years, it was mooted that child benefit was not such a success, and before the 1987 general election there was a catching-up period when child benefit was put back on the rails. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) reminded me of the real reasons why in 1977 I and my then hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East, now my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), did not include tax allowances in our Finance Bill indexation clause relating to personal tax allowances. We took the view then that as child tax allowances were being phased out and would disappear within two years it would be ridiculous to incorporate them in new legislation.
      In 1977, child benefit was being phased in with all-party support, with increasing commitments from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, including the then Tory Opposition, that child benefit would be viewed just as though it was a tax allowance—which it was, in part—and in terms both of its value and spending power. The point was made that the Finance Bill should not be used to index-link what was then a social security benefit.
      As the years passed, it was clear that child benefit did not work out that way. It has been frozen at the same rate for three years and will remain frozen in cash terms until the next general election. There is no indication that there will be any change. The game is up. What the Government have or have not done must be seen for what it is. It is consistent and logical for hon. Members to say that the idea of this universal benefit loses its validity—as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said—if its spending power is not maintained.
      We either accept the consequences of saying that family size is irrelevant to the income of the working family, and throw back decades of social and taxation policy, or we accept that family size is relevant to income and that universal child benefit is failing to do as it should and do something about it. The only thing that the House can do is to reintroduce some form of child tax allowance.
      When I was looking through the Committee and Report stages of the Finance Bill of 1977, because I wanted to check what I had said, I found that our present position was forecast by a Conservative Member. I shall give the flavour of what he said to the House on 25 July 1977. He said:
      "A large number of payments are index linked already that is the point. The long-term benefits are now index linked, with the approval of both sides of the House, to prices or to
      918
      incomes, whichever be the greater, and the short-term benefits are linked to incomes only. One reason for arguing the case two years ago was that child benefit seemed to be on the wrong side of the boundary even then."
      He was making a point about the refusal to index-link when the legislation for child benefit was considered. I freely admit that I voted with the Government not to do so. I also voted with the Government on personal taxation policy in 1975, but by 1977 I had seen through what was happening. The same Conservative Member continued:
      "I am confining myself to this one point, and I am saying that if we leave the boundaries of index linking as they will be set in this Bill, the outcome will be intolerable in the case of child benefit and family support. Everyone will have his case for index-linking some further part of the taxation system and so on, but it seems to me that the family situation is the most pressing.
      It will be argued—I hope that it will be—that the Government still have complete flexibility to index-link by uprating child benefit or any other form of family support through the tax system, as they wish. But every time one index-links by statute some part of the benefit system or the tax system, one imposes a rigidity on that part of the system, taking away flexibility for the Government … so that inevitably, if they are short of resources or of revenue, they have to move in on the others. Thus, the Government will he left with a strong inbuilt bias towards index-linking personal tax allowances, and for any Chancellor of any party in a difficult year for resources or for revenue, that, it seems to me, will be bad news in respect of child benefit and taxpayers with families, unless … it is the intention of the index linkers, as it should be, to go on to index-linked child benefit"— [Official Report, 25 July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 123–4.]
      The person who made that speech is today a member of the Cabinet. He correctly forecast what would happen—except, of course, that there is no shortage of revenue—but that is not the point. The present Secretary of State for Health should be commended on his foresight in putting that warning in the pages of Hansard on Report on the Finance Bill 1977. He saw what was likely to happen and drew conclusions, but I cannot accept the points that were implicit in the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).
      I understand that there is virtually 100 per cent. take-up of child benefit. I have never come across anyone who did not receive it, did not want it or sent it back. It is a massive benefit in terms of the income of working families. The hon. Member for Buckingham told us why many people do not need the extra help, but we should not greatly deprive the majority who need the extra help because child benefit has been frozen. The hon. Gentleman's case does not hold water. I shall be interested to hear his argument on the Lords amendment to the Social Security Bill.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead will press the new clause to a Division. It is important that the House should send out a signal that we are concerned that families' incomes have been eroded as a result of the interaction of the tax and social security systems. That was never the intention and it was never the stated objective of the Government, but that is what has come to pass. The sooner people get to know about it, and the sooner the House acts to redress the balance, the better.
      11.45 pm
      Sir George Young: It is important that we should be clear about what the debate is and is not about. It is not about tackling poverty or giving help to families whose income is below the tax threshold. As I am sure the Minister will say in his reply, those families would not benefit from the new clause. The debate is about

      919
      fairness between taxpayers with and without children. It is basically about recognition of the fact that taxpayers who are bringing up children have a responsibility which brings with it costs that are not faced by other taxpayers who do not have children. The tax system used to reflect those costs through child tax allowances.
      Child tax allowances endorsed a basic principle of taxation, which is that an individual should be taxed only on his surplus income once his unavoidable expenditure has been met, hence the personal allowances which take people on low incomes right out of the tax net. When a person marries, the tax system recognises his increased obligations by giving him a married man's allowance. If the taxpayer had children, the system used to carry that principle further through the child tax allowances, which reflected the additional obligations of the taxpayer with children.
      The problem began when child tax allowances were converted to child benefit, which had two objectives—the one that I have just mentioned and the new one of tackling poverty. Since that conversion, the poverty-tackling role of child benefit has been emphasised, and we have forgotten entirely the other objective of equity between taxpayers. As a result, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) explained, the burden of taxation has shifted progressively during the past 10 years from taxpayers without children on to the shoulders of taxpayers with children. I see no sense or equity in that.
      It is true that part of the money saved by not uprating child benefit has been ploughed back to help people on low incomes, but that has meant only that the cost of tackling family poverty has been borne not by taxpayers as a whole but by taxpayers who happen to have children, and there is no sense of justice or logic in that either. The switch from child tax allowances to child benefit has been bad news for families. The problem is that child benefit is now public expenditure, and therefore bad, whereas the child tax allowances used to be tax cuts, and therefore good. The litmus paper now turns red instead of blue when the Treasury starts to look at help for families.
      The new clause is a gentle reminder that children are not consumer durables to be bought by people who can afford them but not by those who cannot. They are, to use a cliché, the next generation. Bringing them up imposes costs on the parents whereas the benefits are enjoyed by society as a whole when they grow up. The burden ought to be shared, as it used to be shared, through child tax allowances. The costs of bringing up children have switched progressively during the past 10 years, I think unintentionally, away from taxpayers as a whole. The new clause is just a gentle reminder that there is a strong case in terms of horizontal equity for reverting to the system that we used to have.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Ability to pay has always been a primary basis of our taxation system: we should not pay tax until we earn enough to feed, clothe and house ourselves, our wives and our children. That is why we had the tax allowances for children. We replaced that—I was one of those outside the House who supported the change, although I am beginning to regret having done so—with child benefit because the tax allowance suffered from two major drawbacks. One was that it was worth much more to a top rate taxpayer than it was to a standard
      920
      rate taxpayer, and the other was that it was worth nothing at all to someone who earned too little to pay income tax. For those perfectly laudable reasons we replaced the tax allowance with child benefit, not realising when we did so that many of our colleagues would forget that the child benefit system that we now have replaces a tax allowance.
      The arguments for child benefit are just as good today as they were when it was introduced. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues now argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) did, that child benefit is objectionable because it goes to well-off people who do not need it. He should explore and pursue the logic of what he is saying. On that logic we would abolish the single person's allowance, the married person's allowance, mortgage interest tax relief, which is worth more to the better off, the business expansion scheme tax relief and pensions tax relief.
      Mr. Tim Yeo: What my hon. Friend has just suggested is strongly supported by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall not support the new clause, although, as I am trying to explain, I greatly sympathise with the motives behind it, because so many people have forgotten that child benefit replaced a tax allowance.
      If we do not abolish all the benefits that go to people who do not really need them and benefit the better off more than the worse off, why, uniquely, are we choosing to pick on people with children, those least able to afford to be picked on?
      That applies to people at all income levels. A person earning £50,000 per annum with children has less ability to pay than someone earning the same amount without children. It is a fundamental principle of our tax system that the difference in the ability to pay of those with and without children should be reflected in the tax burden. That is equally true of a person earning only £8,000 a year. Those with children have less ability to pay than those without children.
      That is why we should either have a tax allowance for children or retain child benefit and consistently uprate it to allow for changes in the cost of living andit should be paid to rich and poor alike. I prefer the child benefit system and I shall support that. Therefore, much as I strongly support the motives of those who have tabled the new clause, I shall abstain.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I have considerable sympathy with the argument put by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins). I also have great sympathy with the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in putting forward the new clause. The principal purpose that he is seeking to achieve is to highlight in graphic form the difficulties facing families in Britain in bringing up children and meeting the costs that are involved in that.
      The Labour party has always supported the existence and the proper uprating of child benefit since its introduction. We believe fundamentally that that is the proper and sensible way forward in order to ensure that families have the means to bring up children in our society. That is our view and we shall continue to press the Government to change their mind on the foolish decision that they have taken for each of the past two years not to uprate child benefit.
      The proposers of the new clause have identified that as a problem. They have identified the difficulties that many

      921
      families with children now face because of the Government's decision not to uprate child benefit. They have concluded that, because the Government have blocked such uprating, the way forward is no longer to batter at the doors saying that child benefit must be uprated, but to say, "Let us find another way around the problem; let us try the old idea of a tax allowance again."
      I am afraid that that is the point at which my hon. Friends and I must part company. I do not think that all is lost, or that we should give up the fight for child benefit here and now. I say that for two reasons. First, there are many problems relating to a tax allowance as opposed to benefit. A tax allowance is available only to those within the tax system; it is not available to those who fall below the tax threshold. Secondly, tax allowances on the whole go to the father rather than the mother, while child benefit is paid automatically to the mother.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood the purpose of the new clause. It is not to do away with child benefit; in the present circumstances, it would provide an addition to child benefit. Surely the hon. Gentleman's arguments are entirely inapplicable.
      Mr. Smith: I fear that I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. He is, of course, correct in saying that those who tabled the new clause seek to enshrine an additional allowance in the legislation, but the same problems will apply to that additional amount as apply to the principle of a tax allowance as opposed to an increase in child benefit.
      Mr. Frank Field: I accept that between 200,000 and 300,000 parents in work would not be able to claim a tax allowance, should it be introduced, but nearly 20 million others would be able to. Is my hon. Friend saying that because 200,000 cannot claim 20 million should not?
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend mistakes my argument. I am not saying that that is a reason for rejecting the new clause out of hand; I am saying that it is a problem with the system of tax allowance that my hon. Friend wants to introduce. He himself identified a problem relating specifically to the new clause, that it would not necessarily apply to children under education age. That, of course, alters to an extent the figures that he has just given.
      The other difficulty about opting for tax allowance is that tax relief is available to top-rate taxpayers at the top rate, and therefore provides more assistance for higher earners than to lower earners. My hon. Friend talked about ensuring equity both vertically and horizontally, and the horizontal argument—differentiating between families with children and those without—holds up to a certain extent. But in that context the top-rate taxpayers will pose a major disadvantage. As for the vertical argument, my hon. Friend does not have a good case. Those who fall outside the tax system will be unable to benefit from the tax relief that he proposes.
      The problems involved in the mechanism of tax relief, as opposed to an increase in child benefit, are not the only reason for my opposition to my hon. Friend's proposal, however much I applaud his aims.
      We shall continue to make strenuous efforts to persuade the Government that a proper uprating of child benefit is the only sensible way to improve the lot of
      922
      families who are bringing up children. It is clearly the best mechanism for doing so. Many Conservative Members have made that point in the debate.
      We hope that the Government will see sense and that therefore there will be no need to entertain the somewhat flawed proposals relating to child tax allowances that are provided for in the new clause. My hon. Friend's motives are entirely understandable, but I hope that he will join us in continuing to batter at the Government's door and in continuing to ask them to uprate child benefit properly, as they ought to have done in each of the last two years and as they ought to do this year and next year as well.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Norman Lamont: The new clause seeks to reintroduce child tax allowance alongside child benefit. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) have a long-standing interest in the subject.
      I was a little surprised by what the hon. Member for Birkenhead said. During the late 1970s he strongly supported the conversion of child tax allowances into child benefit. Recently, as he acknowledged, he has published a number of articles and made a number of speeches in which he has advocated the abolition of all tax allowances. I am not entirely sure how he reconciles that proposal with his desire to help those on low incomes. However, I realise that what he is doing tonight, as he revealed the other day in The Guardian, is essentially a political, or tactical or teasing exercise. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) for saying that the new clause is only a gentle reminder.
      Under the new clause, the hon. Member for Birkenhead proposes to reintroduce a tax allowance which was abolished in April 1979. As I think that he acknowledged, the new clause does not make a great deal of sense. Far from simplifying and rationalising the tax and social security system, it would introduce new complications. It would be difficult to justify the cost of setting up and maintaining two separate administrative systems to give general support by different means. It has also been acknowledged during the debate that the new clause would fail to meet the aim of helping those who need it most. A child tax allowance would be of no help to the 25 per cent. of families who do not pay tax. The hon. Member for Birkenhead has suggested elsewhere that families should be able to choose whether they wish to receive a cash payment instead of a tax allowance. That, too, would make the system even more complicated.
      At the practical level, the new clause does not suggest how the proposed tax allowance would be divided when both parents can claim relief. As I am sure he realises, under independent taxation both the husband and the wife could each claim the new allowance. The new clause, however, does not make it clear whether the mother or the father ought to have the relief. That is perhaps a point of detail.
      Most of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, were directed not at the new clause but at the fact that the Government have not uprated child benefit. That decision has been explained on many occasions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Child benefit has not been increased this year,

      923
      but the Government are targeting additional help on those families who need it most. Families in receipt of income support or family credit do not gain from an increase in child benefit; it is offset in their income-related benefit.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: It is not true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security explained why child benefit was not uprated. He did not. He produced the most specious speech that I have ever heard in the House. With great respect to my right hon. Friend, he is off the point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said, we are dealing not with people in great poverty, but with the horizontal point—surely even the Treasury will agree with it—that people with families have more responsibilities and expenditure than people without. Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to deal with that point?
      Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend first did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security a grave injustice and then spoke about horizontal equity. Governments have to choose in a world of limited resources. The Government were right to decide to deploy resources more to help families in greatest need.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Lamont: In a minute. I want to answer my right hon. Friend.
      This year we have added £205 million to expenditure on income-related benefits, £70 million of which offsets the effect of the child benefit decision, with a further £70 million increase in the real value of those benefits.
      We recognise the issue of horizontal equity and that child benefit is a useful contribution towards the upkeep of children, but it does not follow that it should be uprated each year and indexed all the time. Tax allowances in 1981 were not indexed. Sometimes tax allowances have been increased by more than inflation, sometimes in line with inflation and sometimes not even with inflation.
      Obviously, benefit decisions must be taken in the light of overall public expenditure. With benefits, unlike with tax allowances, we have the opportunity to redeploy some resources to help the poorest families. Although horizontal equity is important and people have obligations towards their children, it was absolutely right to direct some resources towards helping the poorest families. Increases in child benefit would not have been as effective, or indeed helped poorest families as much, as the increases in family credit.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The Financial Secretary is right only in so far as he says that the Government must choose where to place their fiscal and financial priorities. The Government have made those choices clear. In last year's Budget they decided to forgo well over £2 billion worth of income in tax cuts for top rate taxpayers. For a fraction of that money they could have increased child benefit in line with inflation both last year and this year. The Financial Secretary, as a Treasury Minister, must have had some hand in discussing those choices with the Secretary of State for Social Security. How does he justify them?
      Mr. Lamont: The other point is that the Government's tax policies and overall economic policies have resulted in a considerable increase in the living standards of earners
      924
      with and without children. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the point, but I want to refer to what the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, which was reflected in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said. Both asserted that changes to the tax-benefit system have favoured those without children.
      It is, of course, perfectly true that reductions in the basic rate of income tax have benefited single people more than married couples with children. The reason is that single people pay a higher proportion of their income in tax to start with. However, the tax cuts have benefited everyone, including families with children, and since the Government came to office real take-home pay has increased substantially for those with and without children at all income levels. That is true at half average earnings, where real take-home pay for a married man with two children is up by over 24 per cent.
      Although it may be true that take-home pay after tax cuts has increased somewhat more for those without children, when one takes account of what has been achieved by the increases in family credit, it is not true at the bottom end of the scale. I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend for Chesham and Amersham and of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to the recent study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies into the impact of taxes and benefits since 1979. It said:
      "On incomes below about £200 a week, those with children do significantly better than those without as a direct result of the much increased generosity of family credit."
      I put it to the House that the problem of people with children at the lower end of the scale has been taken care of through our redeploying resources to family credit.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham is over-interested in what he calls horizontal equity. The people whom he says have lost out have benefited enormously from the general prosperity, the general growth in the economy and the tax cuts, all of which have brought about a considerable increase in the living standards of families with children. If we had not pursued our policies, many of those families would have been much nearer the poverty level and many of them have been floated further away from poverty as a result of the policies we have pursued.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I welcome, of course, the fact that something has been done for the least well off and it is gratifying that £70 million of the £200 million saved on child benefit went to the least well off. It would have been even more gratifying if the whole £200 million had gone to the least well off, but it did not. I must ask my right hon. Friend to return to the question of horizontal equity. It is true that everyone is better off, unless something has gone seriously wrong with the economy. All our children grow every year. However, families with children are relatively less well off than families without children or even than single persons. Will my right hon. Friend be kind and4deal with that point?
      Mr. Lamont: I have attempted to deal with it. I have made the point that I attach far more importance to the relief of poverty at the bottom end of the scale than I do to the principle of horizontal equity. I still make the point that child benefit has been a useful contribution to the upkeep of children. My right hon. Friend is saying that people miles above the poverty line—middle income families—have somehow been made far worse off just as a

      925
      result of the decision made in the past few years on child benefit. That is not a serious factor or a serious matter in household economics. It is not a serious factor compared with the general increase in prosperity that those families have enjoyed in recent years.
      I am less concerned about horizontal equity and more concerned about doing something for people at the bottom end of the scale than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham appears to be. It is curious to propose new clause 23, which would be so regressive in its impact. What would be the impact of a £100 tax allowance? It would mean £40 a year to the higher rate taxpayer, £25 a year to the basic rate taxpayer, £7·50 a year to a taxpayer on family credit and nothing for anyone earning less than the existing allowances. That seems a difficult approach to justify. We have got our priorities right by directing the help towards those in the greatest need.
      Mr. Rooker: The Financial Secretary said that child benefit was useful. He has also recited the years in which tax allowances had risen by more than inflation, level with inflation and by less than inflation. If my memory serves me correctly—I ask the Financial Secretary to confirm this—in only one year since 1977 have tax allowances risen by less than the rate of inflation. That was 1981, the year when allowances did not rise at all and when the Government came to the House for agreement to freeze tax allowances. Yet child benefit has been frozen at least twice and it has twice been raised by less than the rate of inflation. Only once in 12 years have tax allowances not risen in line with inflation, yet child benefit has failed to increase with inflation in four of those 12 years. Where is the equity for the family in that?
      12.15 am
      Mr. Lamont: I in no way sought to mislead the House or the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I said that allowances were not increased in 1981; it was the only year in which allowances were not indexed. The Government have that choice, and they exercised it on that one occasion. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, child benefit has not been indexed on more occasions. But in those years we have directed more help through family credit, as I have repeatedly emphasised. I believe that the redeployment of resources to the direct relief of poverty is more valuable than, and should come before, the principle of horizontal equity on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has based his case. My right hon. Friend attaches enormous importance to that principle.
      I believe that there should be a recognition of children in the system, but I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that those whose incomes take them well above the family credit network—those on average earnings and above—have really had a significant degree of hardship inflicted on them by our decision. They have benefited from increased earnings and the tax cuts of recent years. For that reason, I believe that the priorities on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has decided are emphatically the right priorities.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 194.

      Division No. 294]

      [12.16 am

      AYES

      Alton, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Beith, A. J.

      Parry, Robert

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Clay, Bob

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Wallace, James

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kennedy, Charles

      Sir George Young and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. Jeff Rooker.

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Amess, David

      Forth, Eric

      Amos, Alan

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Arbuthnot, James

      Franks, Cecil

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Ashby, David

      French, Douglas

      Atkinson, David

      Gale, Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Baldry, Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gow, Ian

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gregory, Conal

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Boswell, Tim

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hague, William

      Bowis, John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bright, Graham

      Hannam, John

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

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

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Hayes, Jerry

      Butcher, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Butler, Chris

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butterfill, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cash, William

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Irvine, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jack, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Jackson, Robert

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

      Janman, Tim

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Colvin, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Key, Robert

      Couchman, James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Cran, James

      Knapman, Roger

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Curry, David

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

      Knowles, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Day, Stephen

      Lang, Ian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dunn, Bob

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Durant, Tony

      Lightbown, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Favell, Tony

      Lord, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      927

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Maclean, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mans, Keith

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stern, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Trippier, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Neubert, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Ward, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Warren, Kenneth

      Page, Richard

      Watts, John

      Paice, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Patnick, Irvine

      Whitney, Ray

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wilkinson, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wilshire, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Raffan, Keith

      Wood, Timothy

      Redwood, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mr. Alan Howarth and

      Shelton, Sir William

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Bill, not amended in the Committee, (and as amended in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Rate Support Grant (Scotland)
12.28 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989, dated 24th May 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.
I appear before the House for the first time with my new responsibility for local government finance in Scotland. It is an opportunity to present good news. The purpose of this order is to adjust grant entitlements for Scottish local authorities for previous years, in the light of more up-to-date information on expenditure during those years. The main point of note is that, in the year just ended, 1988–89, authorities reduced their expenditure, as against their original budget figures, by £48 million, as a result of which, if the House approves this order, we will return to them about £70 million in rate support grant. There are also minor adjustments of grant for 1987–88 and for 1986–87. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has of course been fully consulted about the contents of the order, and welcomes it.
Authorities' budgets for 1988–89 were £3,742 million—£136·5 million above guidelines. As a result, the House approved a year ago the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1988, under which the grant apportionments were reduced of those authorities budgeting above guideline. Of the total excess over guideline of £136·5 million, £116 million, or 85 per cent., was accounted for by Strathclyde and Lothian regions alone. The tariff of grant penalties imposed last July was, when compared with the huge budgeted overspending and also when compared with tariffs in some earlier years, moderate. It imposed modest penalties on authorities which were budgeting slightly over guideline, and which might most easily be persuaded to reduce their spending during the year. The penalty tariff increased substantially for authorities budgeting at 4 per cent. or more over guideline, because it was on those authorities that the greatest pressure needed to be exercised.
The judiciousness of this penalty tariff is well demonstrated by local authorities' response, as evidenced in their provisional outturn figures for this year. Overall spending has been reduced by £48 million by comparison with the original budget figures, and, among authorities that have reduced their expenditure most significantly, Strathclyde has secured reductions of £17 million and Lothian of £20 million. Those two authorities are therefore the major beneficiaries of this evening's order, under which, and subject to the House's approval, they will have returned to them £48·1 million and £23·8 million respectively. Other notable beneficiaries of tonight's order are Fife region and Edinburgh and Glasgow districts. Some authorities—notably Central region and Stirling and Cunninghame districts—have regrettably increased their spending at outturn, and so their penalties are increased.
By comparison, the grant adjustments in respect of 1987–88 and 1986–87 are minor indeed, and reflect simply minor adjustments to those authorities' accounts in the light of the most up-to-date information on their spending in the relevant financial years.

929
I should now like to turn briefly to details of the order. It makes adjustments to grant penalties for the last three years of rate support grant, using the penalty tariffs previously applied to each of those years.
First, the order increases rate support grant for 1988–89 to take account of reductions in spending at provisional outturn stage. As a result, rate support grant will increase from £1,897·8 million to £1,967·5 million. Strathclyde region has reduced its spending excess over guideline from 5·1 per cent. at the time of the 1988 order to 3·97 per cent. and will recover £48·1 million in grant. Similarly, Lothian has reduced its excess from 9·71 per cent. to 4·85 per cent. It will recover grant of £23·8 million. Details of the original 1988–89 penalties and of how they are now being revised are given in appendix 2 of the report, the revised penalties being shown in column 6 of the table to appendix 2 to the report with adjustments to grant payments set out in column 9.
For 1987–88, final or near final outturns show a small decrease in spending. The effect of this is to reduce penalties by £0·2 million. Details of the adjustments to penalties are shown in column 6 of table II of appendix 3 to the report.
For 1986–87, final or near final outturns show a small increase in spending, which has the effect of increasing grant penalties by £0·03 million. Details of the adjustments to penalties are shown in column 8 of table II of appendix 4 to the report. There will be a continuing need to adjust grant for each of those years in the light of up-to-date information.
As for next year—1990–91—representatives of COSLA met my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last Monday, 3 July, and discussed the prospects for spending next year. They said that they expected their spending to go up by at least 7 per cent. —although this was on the basis of simply accepting this year's budget levels and adding their estimate of inflation. I would hope they can do better than that by looking at scope for economies and for greater efficiency and value for money. COSLA recognised that there might be something in this and it is encouraging—though in all the circumstances no more than mildly encouraging—that COSLA now proposes to open discussions with the accounts commission about the commission's future programme of value-for-money studies. I very much hope that that dialogue will he productive.
In the meantime, my right hon. and learned Friend will be reflecting on the discussions with COSLA last Monday and will take them into account when reaching conclusions on a revenue support grant settlement for 1990–91. It is hoped to make a statement on this before the House rises.
It is tempting to say more and to range wider on the subject of local government spending in Scotland, but I shall resist that temptation until I have had the chance to meet representatives of local authorities. For our immediate purposes, the order is good news for local authorities, it has been strongly welcomed by COSLA, and I commend it to the House.
12.36 am
Mr. John Maxton: I welcome the Minister to his new role as poll tax spokesman, although I must tell him that Edinburgh Members of Parliament with small majorities do not do too well as poll tax spokesmen. The last one lost his seat, and the Minister
930
may have the same problem at the next election. His new responsibilities are due to a shift in the power structure of the Scottish Tory party. I am delighted to see the new deputy leader of the Tory party in Scotland in his place, even though the new leader is not in his.
We welcome any money that the Government give local authorities, although the Minister's argument that this is some act of generosity on his part is laughable. This is money that local authorities should have had in the first place. It should never have been lost under a penalty scheme that should never have existed.
We welcome the end of the grant penalties. The system ended in Scotland only on 31 March this year, when it also ended in England and Wales. So poll tax levels in Scotland have been affected by the clawback, but England and Wales will enjoy a whole year without penalties, which means that the poll tax there next year will not be affected as it was in Scotland.
This order does not return all the money due to the local authorities. It represents only the partial return of clawback money, and a small number of authorities have lost out.
We welcome this money, however meagre it is and however late in the coming. Our local authorities need it to spend on the services that they provide.
This rather late and short debate may be an historic moment for the House. This may be the last rate support grant order for Scotland. When we return to power and introduce a new local taxation system, we shall not call it the rate support grant system.
12.39 am
Sir Hector Monro: I welcome the order, which will greatly help local authorities. Will my hon. Friend answer two questions, or write to me with the information if that proves inconvenient?
Why have only four out of all the authorities received penalties? Why has not Annandale and Eskdale been penalised? It has clearly been overspending, and it would be interesting to know why, and by how much. Has my hon. Friend the Minister brought it home to that authority that that is no way to proceed with prudent housekeeping? [Interruption.] It has been the result of a Democrat majority in Annandale and Eskdale.
Secondly, will my hon. Friend either respond tonight or write to me about the arrangements for the UBR, which are so important in Scotland and which my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) mentioned recently? They appear to be more satisfactory than any self-employed person or small business man could have anticipated, which is good news.
12.41 am
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Annandale and Eskdale district's overspend against guidelines in 1987–88 increased on the basis of further adjustments to the accounts for that year. Those figures will have been produced by the council's auditors. It is a great pity that the authority, which is normally noted for its prudence, should find itself in that position.
Local authorities knew when budgeting last year that there would be penalties. They were also given early warning of the exact penalty tariff on 19 May 1988 and a similar procedure was adopted for earlier years. Therefore, they had plenty of opportunity during the year to reduce

931
their planned expenditure and thereby to avoid penalties. However, I hasten to confirm that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the penalty system is coming to an end. The hon. Gentleman referred to the closing down of the English system this year. That was undertaken for reasons that did not apply in Scotland. There are many differences between the Scottish and English systems. After the close down, English authorities were unable to recover grant already lost last year or in previous years. Our arrangements in Scotland are well understood and local authorities were well able to respond.
The essence of the order is to return £70 million to local authorities. The funds are being returned to local authorities that budgeted to overspend last year, but were then able during the year to reduce their spending. The order will assist local authorities' cash flows now and assist them in keeping budgets. Secondly, it will keep down the base level of their spending for all future years.
The order has been welcomed by COSLA and I detect, despite the slightly grudging remarks of the hon. Member for Cathcart, that, none the less, on the whole the Opposition welcome the order, although it is difficult for him to say so. We have now embarked on a new grant system, and grant penalties are something of the past, except to the extent that we are repaying them in part. It is the accountability of the community charge that allows us to end grant penalties, and for that reason alone the Opposition should join us in welcoming the new community charge. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989, dated 24th May 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 May, be approved.

Coal Industry
12.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move,
That the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payment Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
I have such good news to tell my hon. Friends that I must spell it out for a few moments.
I am sure that the order will be welcomed by both sides of the House, as it follows and confirms my announcement on 10 April that the Government would modify the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme so that receipt of benefits under the scheme would no longer be conditional upon the beneficiary making himself available for work.
As hon. Members will know, it has always been part of the scheme that beneficiaries must attend unemployment benefit offices, be available for work, and therefore be in receipt of national insurance credits, in order to receive benefits under the scheme. Over the past year or so, however, the restart programme has been testing more rigorously whether claimants are genuinely available for work. A number of RMPS beneficiaries have been failing adequately to show their availability. That has meant that they have lost entitlement to RMPS benefits.
Payment of RMPS benefits has always been conditional upon the ex-mineworker signing on for employment at the unemployment benefit office unless he was certified as incapable of work through sickess or injury. Nevertheless, there was a general perception that those who took up offers of weekly benefits associated with voluntary redundancy under the successive schemes were in effect taking early retirement from the coal industry.
Consequently, concern was expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and especially by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), for Newark (Mr. Alexander), and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).
Mr. Spencer Batiste: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that representations were made by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House representing mining constituencies—but nowadays the majority of them are Conservative Members.
Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. Certainly concern was expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that ex-miners who regarded themselves as retired after many years' service in the coal industry were being required to demonstrate their availability for work.
The effect of the draft order is to create a new option for RMPS beneficiaries. They may choose to continue, as at present, to sign on at unemployment benefit offices, to make themselves available for work, and to receive national insurance credits. Alternatively, beneficiaries may choose not to sign on, and consequently not to be asked about their availability for work.
In that case they will still receive RMPS benefits as before. They will also receive further benefits under the

933
scheme equivalent to contributory social security benefits to which they will no longer be entitled because national insurance credits will no longer be awarded to them. Those further benefits are equivalent to sickness benefit and invalidity benefit. Beneficiaries will also be eligible to receive sums sufficient to pay class 3 national insurance contributions to maintain entitlement to state retirement pension.
The key element of the amending order is the new article 9, paragraphs (1) to (3), which have two main effects as regards payments to RMPS beneficiaries entitled to weekly payments under the scheme.
A beneficiary who is not incapacitated will be paid a weekly sum which, together with any social security benefits to which he is entitled, will equal the total benefits to which he would have been entitled had he continued to sign on at the unemployment benefit office. That means that the beneficiary will receive a payment under the scheme equal in value to unemployment benefit when his entitlement to unemployment benefit is exhausted—and irrespective of whether he makes himself available for work.
On days of sickness, when the RMPS beneficiary is no longer eligible for sickness or invalidity benefits from the social security system, the scheme will pay a weekly sum which, taken together with any social security benefits to which he is entitled, will equal the total of all the benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been eligible for contributory social security benefits. That means that the beneficiary will receive a payment under the scheme equal in value before tax to either sickness benefit or invalidity benefit. All RMPS benefits are liable to tax in the case of those beneficiaries falling in the tax bracket.
The new article 18 provides for the Secretary of State to pay such number of an employee's voluntary class 3 national insurance contributions as will be sufficient to secure his entitlement to state retirement pension at the rate to which he would have been entitled had he continued to receive national insurance credits. In general, we expect payments of such contributions to be made as a single lump sum at age 59, taking into account the individual's past employment record and his being in receipt of automatic national insurance credits between the ages of 60 and 65.
Article 18A fulfils the other promise I made in my announcement of 10 April—that beneficiaries will be recompensed for lost RMPS benefits arising from changes in the availability-for-work procedures. That generous provision provides for full retrospective award of lost benefits arising from the effect of restart to 3 January 1988. That will fully compensate those who have been adversely affected.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I am sure that the House welcomes the Minister's announcement that the position of redundant mineworkers will be restored to that for which they understood they had bargained when accepting redundancy. The news that losses will be repaid is also most welcome. However, perhaps the Minister will address himself to the position of mineworkers who were harassed into accepting low-pay employment under the restart programme and who, because they accepted such employment, may have lost their entitlement to benefit from other aspects of the scheme. Can anything be done to assist such people?
Mr. Spicer: We do not accept that there has been any harassment—that is the wrong word to use. There is no way in which one could recompense somebody who has taken on another job. If people have not been able to take on a job, they will get compensation.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: All the mineworkers in my constituency are grateful to the Minister and the Departments for bringing about this satisfactory conclusion. The Minister will recall that a few months ago I presented to him two cases of 59-year-old men, one of whom was called Harry Cryer. As recently as last week, Harry Cryer received a letter from the Department of Employment demanding repayments and telling him that he would not get his benefit or credits. I hope that, after tonight, such action by the Department of Employment will cease.
Mr. Spicer: No harassment is involved. It is our intention that all repayments should be made by the end of August. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's two constituency cases.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: At the weekend, I had a telephone call from a member of the clerical staffs association who had a certain amount of superannuation. She asked me whether I would ask the Minister whether women working in offices who had been made redundant would be treated in the same way, notwithstanding the fact that they had some superannuation from their pension fund, and whether any difference would be made up.
Mr. Spicer: I shall check that matter and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether that case falls into this category.
Mr. Allen McKay: I thank the Departments of Employment and Trade and Industry for doing this great thing. Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to a question that I put to him some time ago about people who have lost their national insurance credits? They are likely to lose their pension benefit when they are 65. Will there be back credits? Can we ensure that the pension is not lost or reduced?
Mr. Spicer: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the credits will be made up in the form of a lump sum at the age of 59 if there are credit deficiencies.
Mr. David Ashby: Can my hon. Friend explain the morality of the order? Can he explain why the mineworkers should be separate from trawlermen and other people who have lousy jobs? Has he considered why miners, as opposed to people in other employment, should be singled out in what one could call the lousy job factor?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that the Minister will not go down that road but will deal with the order.
Mr. Spicer: It is perfectly fair that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) should ask for justification. There was, however, a perception when the arrangements were made—the arguments for them are perhaps not matters that are properly debatable tonight, as you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker—that people would not lose out and that the availability-for-work criteria would not be applied

935
with the rigour that is being applied under restart. One can argue about whether that perception was well founded. British Coal made it clear at the time that people had to be available for work, and the Government accepted the case for these arrangements.
It was perfectly proper for my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West to make the point that miners who have been made redundant have been given exceptionally generous terms, for which the taxpayer is paying. There is no question about that. We hope that there will be benefits for the industry. Productivity is rising, and the industry is becoming able to stand on its own feet against competition.
I am sure that hon. Members recognise that the RMPS is one of the most generous redundancy schemes that has ever been set up for a group of industrial employees—that makes the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West. On joining the scheme, beneficiaries could receive weekly benefits of up to 90 per cent. of their pre-redundancy earnings and a lump sum payment. By this order, the Government have demonstrated their continuing concern for ex-mineworkers by allowing them, if they wish, no longer to make themselves available for work, and by paying them benefits equivalent to those they would have received from the social security system.
This is a further example of the Government's commitment to the coal mining industry. The Government require that the industry maintains its present pace of putting its house in order so that it can stand on its own feet and compete fairly against all corners. That is in its own hands and in prospect, contrary to what some Opposition Members sometimes say.
12.56 am
Mr. Kevin Barron: I am tempted to take the Minister up on his assertion of the Conservative Government's commitment to the coal industry. We will wait for the outcome of the negotiations between British Coal and the new generators before we decide what type of commitment the Government have to the coal industry. Everyone knows that the Government have control over all of the organisations that are involved in those negotiations.
At long last, an injustice in the British coalfields is being put right tonight. It is a great pity that we have had to wait some 19 months since the introduction of the Government's restart scheme for mineworkers who have retired on weekly redundancy payments to get what we could only call fair treatment. Much has been said about who is responsible for getting the Government to take this corrective action aimed at the anomalies that restart threw up, but the public record will show quite clearly that it was Labour Members who first raised the issue—in July 1988 —of the treatment of retired mineworkers.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Labour party opposed any amendments to the restart scheme when it was considered by the House?
Mr. Barron: The public record will show where the argument about the treatment of retired mineworkers under the Government's restart scheme came from. It
936
came from my predecessor on the Opposition Front Bench—my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)—and from me on the Back Benches. Conservative Members can read the list of hon. Members who are supposed to have got the amending order before the House tonight, but although many of them took part in the debate in July 1988, not one of them mentioned the problem that retired miners would have with the Government's restart scheme.
When the matter was first raised, the Minister said that the
"matter comes under employment legislation and is not for my Department."—[Official Report. 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 674.]
Tonight we find that he was wrong. It is, indeed, a matter for his Department. That is why he is at the Dispatch Box presenting this order to put the injustice right.
No immediate action was taken after that debate. Letters and discussions were followed by delegations to the Department of Energy and the Department of Employment led by me and many of my hon. Friends. By March 1989 the Department of Energy was still unable to settle the issues that we are debating. Yet at that time an order dealing with restructuring grants in the coal industry was brought before the House. One would have thought that after 14 months of restart and months after the issue had first been raised, this order could have been brought forward then in order to end the injustice done to many people who took redundancy under the scheme.
It was only on 14 March this year, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), that the Secretary of State said that he would introduce an amending order, and that is what we are debating.
The Opposition thank the Government for the order. The Minister may be aware that about 60,000 recipients will be covered by it. Many of them are under 60 years of age and are therefore eligible for restart interviews or could meet the availability-for-work test under that scheme.
In effect, the original orders make such people retire. Many British Coal officials who offered redundancy terms said that the men would retire when they finished at their colliery, only to find out that that was not true. I am pleased to say that when this amending order is passed tonight they will be officially retired.
The Minister may be interested to know that the major trade union in the British coal industry, of which I am proud to have been a member for many years now and of which I am a sponsored Member in the House, currently allows men to retire at 55 years of age. We should be congratulating the Government on beating that target by up to five years.
The order deserves the support of the House because it puts right an injustice. It ensures that an amount equivalent to unemployment benefit due or class 3 national insurance contributions are paid by the Department of Energy and so removes the anomaly that existed between that Department and the Department of Employment. It will compensate those who have lost many hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds as a result of the way in which the restart interviews were applied to people in receipt of a weekly payment and a coal allowance from British Coal.
Mr. Andy Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Sherwood is the largest mining constituency and so has more miners who have retired under the RMPS than

937
any other in Britain. Why is it that not one miner in my constituency has lost a pound of his entitlement? Why does that happen only in Labour constituencies?
Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman may have answered another question. If nobody in his constituency lost any money under the restart scheme, that may be why it was not until February this year that the hon. Gentleman appears in any records of the House as wanting to do anything about the problems of retired miners under the restart scheme.
When I raised the differences between constituencies in July 1988, nearly 12 months ago, the Department of Employment was not operating the restart interviews in the way that it did later in my constituency. The scheme was introduced gradually throughout Britain, and its effect was felt first in areas such as Leicestershire and south Wales.
Mr. Skinner: I think that there is a more sinister interpretation of what the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has had to say. I am of the opinion that some of the bureaucrats in the DSS and unemployment benefit offices have been instructed to go for the Labour constituencies. The hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag.
Mr. Barron: Perhaps the Minister would like to answer that point when he replies. I would not care to make such a suggestion; it seems to me to credit the Conservative party with far too much forethought and political wisdom, although I may be wrong.
Opposition Members welcome the order, although we wish that it had come sooner: we have been at the forefront of the argument that this injustice should be put right. We hope that, if anomalies recur in Government legislation that seem to be aimed at frightening people away from becoming unemployment statistics—and, on occasion, aimed at massaging the statistics—people who have spent a lifetime working in coal mines expecting retirement rather than redundancy will not be treated so callously.
1.6 am
Mrs. Edwina Currie: As it is late, I shall be brief.
I have three thank-you's to offer my hon. Friend the Minister. As hon. Members will remember, I mentioned in my maiden speech that I represented thousands of coal miners, as I did at the time. Now the pits have closed, or are about to, and relatively few miners are left. The fact that that transition has taken place with relatively little pain or disruption to the constituency is due entirely to the redundant mineworkers payment scheme.[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Let us have one debate at a time.
Mrs. Currie: My first thank-you is to my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessors for implementing the scheme and making it as generous as it has been during the 1980s. My second is for the changes contained in the order. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that miners were indeed encouraged to see themselves as retired rather than redundant, whatever may have been written in the paperwork at the time. They felt that they had completed their service down the pits with honour and dignity, and that the reduction in numbers had been made in the national interest.[Interruption.] We have a saying in my
938
part of the world, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is proving the truth of it: "Derbyshire born and Derbyshire bred—strong in the arm and thick in the head". I have been waiting for six years for the opportunity to say that to the hon. Gentleman.
When interviewed by restart and told that their benefits were to be withdrawn, my constituents were very upset. They came to see me in my advice bureaux, just as others went to many of my colleagues. They explained why they felt so upset. This may answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who is my neighbour. They felt that they had already done their bit by giving up their jobs and what they saw as their status in life—because that goes with the job—and also by giving up the prospect of a future career in the industry. They believed that they had become retired people, so it was difficult for them when they were told that they were not retired and that they would have to return to the job market on a compulsory and not a voluntary basis.
The most effective pressure of all came from the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. That is true of many of my constituents. I put it to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that when men have stayed at work despite the most horrendous provocation, as my constituents did thoughout the 12 months' strike, they deserve extra recognition and consideration, and they got it from the Minister.
Mr. Barron: Can the hon. Lady tell us when the UDM sat down with the Government to discuss redundant miners and the restart scheme? Did the union do that when closure of the south Derbyshire coalfield was being discussed?
Mrs. Currie: If it is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall refer in a few moments to some of the closures. It is typical of the Labour party, both in my constituency and elsewhere, that all it can do is to pick and poke at what happened in the past. Most of my hon. Friends, and my constituents, are much more interested in the future.
Thirdly, I thank my Government colleagues for bringing the scheme to an end. The last entrants were in March 1987. That was entirely right and proper. The reconstruction of the coal industry has almost drawn to a close. Coal is now extracted by fewer than half the previous number of miners. Future miners who are made redundant who go on to schemes of this kind will have to bargain for their money with the employer. That is absolutely right. It is far better that the employer should get costs down so that he can chase big customers and serve them properly.
I look forward to the day when British Coal (Enterprises) starts to be a taxpayer and to contribute instead of taking taxpayers' money. I am convinced that that can happen. We should work towards the eventual disappearance of schemes such as this. We should not be subsidising the industry with money provided by private businesses, often in the same constituency, which may find it hard to compete.
As a result of the redundant mineworkers payment scheme, huge changes have taken place in the industry and also in my constituency. This is the first time in nearly four years that I have been able to speak about the reconstruction of industry in my constituency. My constituents have no regrets whatever about leaving the

939
coal industry. They were given a choice. They could choose either to leave the industry under the RMPS—which meant that they had some security and some financial certainty for the rest of their lives—or to stay in the industry.
On 24 June I visited the mine workshops in Swadlincote— the main workshops centre in the midlands. They are flourishing and looking forward to the day when they will be privatised and can serve customers way beyond British Coal, and I look forward to the day when I can have shares in the business.
Most of the men took the opportunity that was offered by the scheme to say goodbye to the industry, and they did so without a backward glance. All Conservative Members with mining constituencies worried very much about the effect on employment, but we need not have done so. Those miners turned their backs on a dirty and dangerous industry, which still takes a terrible toll on men's health—we know that from our advice bureaux when people ask us if we can help them to get compensation for appalling lung diseases which are the legacy of deep coal mining—and our fears were unfounded.
Unemployment in my constituency started to come down before the pits closed, and it has been coming down steadily ever since. As a result, we are now in a totally different ball game. We need the skills of the men who have left the industry and many of them are returning to the job market. That is most welcome. The only other change that I hope to see, and which I hope that the Minister will encourage, is British Coal getting rid of and selling the many derelict acres of land that it owns in my constituency and elsewhere so that we can get on with further reconstruction. If the transition is successful and we reach the point where we say that British Coal should get rid of the land and make it available to other industries which will offer employment to the sons and daughters of my ex-miners, it will be mainly because of the Government's generosity in this scheme and others. I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for that.
1.14 am
Mr. Alexander Eadie: I do not give such a qualified welcome to the order as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I extend to the Minister my full appreciation for the order.
I do not give a damn whether the miners concerned are members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers or of the National Union of Mineworkers. They all suffered from the restart legislation. I do not want to become involved in a brawl about who did this and who did that. The order rectifies the position of 60,000 miners. I could probably claim to be the first person to raise the problem, but that is not important. It is unseemly that we have one voice from the Conservative Benches that challenges the merits of the order. That is a pity. I expected the order to receive a unanimous welcome from the House.
I was perturbed to be told that there were no problems in the Sherwood constituency when thousands of miners throughout the country had problems. It makes me suspicious that miners suffered not only harassment but political harassment because of the restart programme.
The history of the matter must be put on the record. The Minister knows that the miners' group had a meeting
940
with the Secretary of State for Energy. On behalf of the miners' group I want to be fair to the Secretary of State. At that meeting the right hon. Gentleman told us that he warned the Department of Employment of the consequences of forcing the order through, but that it insisted on it. I do not intend to make party political points or to indict the Under-Secretary of State for the legislative mess that was created.
The miners' parliamentary group met the Minister of State, Department of Employment who extended to us the greatest courtesy and understanding. He told us that we were the only people who had submitted documentary evidence to show the mistake that was made. He was anxious to rectify the problem and kindly assured us that he would do his level best to ensure that there was amending legislation.
The miners' group was persistent and met the chairman of British Coal. He assured us that the problem was not of his making and that, although he had tried to advise the Government of the anomalies, unfortunately Governments do not always listen. Ex-miners and redundant miners who are involved will welcome this retrospective legislation. Not only do I think that they will welcome the retrospection, but I believe that they will welcome it even more because the Minister has said that there will be retrospection until January 1988. That is important for many of the redundant mineworkers involved.
We have all seen such mineworkers at our surgeries. I had one lad coming to me with his wife and he was actually crying about how they were going to make ends meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) could probably tell the House about more threatening circumstances as a consequence of redundancy. The House should be under no illusion. This legislative mistake caused much distress among redundant miners, many of them in their early 50s or late 50s, who had given a lifetime of service to the industry. After having given that lifetime of service, some were practically unemployable.
I warmly welcome the order. It will give succour to 60,000 mineworkers. I do not give a damn about what union or what area they are in and I do not give a damn who takes the credit for it. Those miners are the people who will benefit and we welcome the order.
1.20 am
Mr. Spencer Batiste: It was, I believe, the late President Kennedy who once said that success had a thousand fathers, but failure was an orphan. As the announcement tonight is an undoubted success for the Government in responding to what is widely perceived to have been a serious injustice in the redundancy scheme, there are, inevitably, many hon. Members who are perhaps introducing a jarring note into what should be a response of wide acceptance of the scheme by Conservative and Opposition Members.
Undoubtedly it was correct, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in early debates on the subject, that technically the details of the scheme meant that those who participated in it would be subject to programmes such as the restart scheme. The reality, as was made clear by representations from many hon. Members, which they heard from many of their constituents, was that when the scheme was sold on the ground in individual pits, it was made clear to the people concerned that they would be

941
taking early retirement as part of a restructuring scheme. I see no immorality or inconsistency in that and I believe that the Government have acted properly and responsibly in treating what is widely perceived to have been a great injustice.
Much of the debate tonight has been about who was responsible for the process and how they were responsible. There may be those hon. Members who belong to the rottweiler tendency who believe that barking and biting is the only way to achieve anything. Equally, it is clear that there are many other hon. Members who believe that more patient and careful argument is more likely to succeed. It is immaterial who was jumping up and down in the House. What really mattered was that as the problem and its seriousness became manifest in constituency after constituency, all hon. Members who represented mining constituencies joined in representations to the Government, which have been so successfully vindicated.
One must recognise the complexity involved in coming up with such a scheme and its interaction with so many other parts of the legislative framework. It is good to see that both the Department of Employment and the Department of Energy are represented here tonight by Ministers. That reflects the complexity and considerable interaction the scheme has with legislation on a wide basis.
Clearly, this part of the restructuring has been concluded very satisfactorily and brings to a substantial conclusion the major restructuring of the coal industry which, it must be emphasised, has taken place without a single compulsory redundancy. It is only right to record clearly the thanks of the House and all hon. Members who represent mining constituencies that not only has that restructuring been achieved, but that it has been achieved with manifest justice. I speak on behalf of all Conservative Members in saying that this restructuring should lead to even greater success when the mining industry is returned to the private sector and miners can own a stake in the pits in which they work.
1.24 am
Mr. A. J. Beith: I represent a mining constituency—the only one in Northumberland with a working pit left. I warmly welcome the scheme and I decline the invitation of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to join in a competition to see who contributed most to the achievement of this most welcome outcome. I congratulate the Government and express the thanks of the redundant miners in my constituency.
The order restores the position to what the miners thought it was in the first place. Let there be no doubt that miners believed at the time, and were led to believe, that they were taking early retirement. They were told, "You have worked for many years in the industry, but the industry now has to change. We should like you to retire early." In many cases, the miners' health was not all that good, and their chances of alternative jobs were almost non-existent, so they were told, "We will ensure that you have a satisfactory basis on which to retire early."
Much of the literature that the men received at the time referred to pensions, because early pensions were part of the package. If one talks to people about pensions, they tend to assume that they have retired. They tend to think that they have entered early retirement rather than a temporary interval after which they will be asked to go for interviews for another job. It came as a shock and a blow
942
to a great many miners to be presented with the awful choice between losing their benefits through not taking part in the restart scheme and entering the restart scheme and taking a badly paid job that probably would not last very long and permanently losing their right to all their benefits. Either way, they would lose, and that was a frightening prospect.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I think that the hon. Gentleman may wish to widen the terms of the debate—
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: Well, I have not—
Mr. Skinner: Go on. Give way.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) giving way?
Mr. Beith: I give way to the hon. Member for Bolsover.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman referred to the restart scheme. In view of the contest in which he was engaged some time ago, does the hon. Gentleman think that Paddy Backdown would benefit from a restart scheme?
Mr. Beith: My right hon. Friend has plenty of excellent and useful work to do, as have I—both of us in the positions that we each now occupy.
As the Minister must realise, the miners who had to face that terrible choice have been through a miserable year, in which they have not known [Interruption.) Some hon. Members seem to think that the position of the redundant mineworkers who have been through what I am describing is amusing in some way; I must tell them that it is not. To be faced with the prospect of not being able to keep up the payments on their house or maintain their families in ordinary circumstances as in previous years was not at all amusing, and it is a great relief that that cloud has been lifted from them.
If the Minister is in the business of righting injustices in redundancy payments schemes in the industry, there are a few other things that he could do on the basis of his experience. I am sure that he would like to repeat the experience of gaining all-party support for his proposals. He could examine the position of opencast workers as we approach 1992 and the single European market. Opencast workers are still not treated in the same way as those covered by the scheme. The Minister could usefully consider that problem, because European money would be available to sort it out. He might also consider the position of the widows who did not get full housing benefit because the cash that they were receiving in lieu of concessionary coal disqualified them
The Minister has started on the useful course of righting injustices in redundancy payments and concessionary coal schemes. I hope that he will continue on that course, and will not be discouraged by those of his hon. Friends who say that the Government have no place in such activities and that we ought not to have such schemes. The Minister recognised in his speech that a major reconstruction of the coal industry could not have been achieved without unacceptable social cost without a scheme such as this. I hope that he will reject the criticisms—some of them implicit and some of them confused because they were associated with congratulations—that

943
have come from Conservative Members. My hon. Friends and I and Labour Members have warmly welcomed the steps that he has taken to put right what would otherwise have been a serious injustice.
1.30 am
Mr. David Ashby: I welcome the scheme in that it back-dates the original package to restructure the coal mining industry. Basically, early retirement has been provided for miners to put them in the same position as employees in many other industries. It was wrong to say in the original negotiations, "It doesn't matter, fellows—you can take your redundancy and effectively you will be retired; there will be a nod and a wink and you will not be asked to take part in any restart scheme; you will not have to look for another job, but you will be able to take unemployment benefit." That is a rather slipshod approach.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashby: Perhaps I may finish my point before giving way.
A rather slipshod approach was adopted and it is a great pity that that was not recognised at the beginning.
There were many other industries which needed restructuring and in which employees worked long and hard hours doing dirty jobs. Britain has moved from heavy industry to light industry, and the system that we have introduced in the coal mining industry could have been used in many other areas. It is clear that there has been great injustice over the years. I accept that the miners suffered an injustice and I am grateful that it has been rectified. In any other restructuring of an industry we must ensure that we take account of the overall package. Let us be fair to all, not just to those in one industry.
1.32 am
Mr. Eric Illsley: I am surprised that so many Conservative Members are in their places to welcome the order. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has said that not many of them were affected by the background that led to the introduction of the scheme and not many faced constituency problems.
I had a problem last year when a constituent committed suicide after he was put on a restart scheme. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, this is no laughing matter. It is even less funny when we find that certain areas have been targeted for the restart scheme. My constituents were confronted with specific dates when 8,000 redundant mineworkers were to be brought in for interviews. I was informed of the dates, and it was obvious that the Department of Employment had a phased programme for bringing in redundant miners to complete their restart application forms and their interviews. I should imagine that that is a matter of record. I ask the Minister whether he will supply the terms of the record to hon. Members who are interested in them. We shall then be able to establish whether certain mining areas were targeted before other areas.
944
Perhaps I should remind Conservative Members that the redundant mineworkers payment scheme started in 1968, when miners received £200 or £300. They did not enjoy concessionary coal or weekly payments. The restart scheme was not introduced until the 1980s. The RMPS was not updated to its present level until 1983.
It is rather surprising to find in the Union of Democratic Mineworkers newspaper of last month a short quote from the Secretary of State for Energy suggesting that Roy Link was responsible for the order. It makes me wonder why the Minister bothered to come to the Dispatch Box today to tell us about it—it might have been better to announce it at the UDM conference at Weymouth. I ask the Minister again to supply a list of the targeted areas for the phasing in of restart interviews.
1.34 am
Mr. Michael Spicer: The last point that was raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) sounds highly unlikely, but I will certainly look into it.
I am grateful for the warm and sincere comments that were made by many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said that he thought that the order would receive a unanimous welcome. I thought that it did. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was pretty sour throughout the debate, but hon. Members might have expected that from him. It has to be said that he has been pressing this matter upon us over several months. I should have thought that we would have detected from him a sense of exaltation and gratitude, but we did not.
Mr. Skinner: Tempt me a bit more.
Mr. Spicer: I will not tempt the hon. Gentleman. He has already made his feelings clear.
I am sorry that I did not add my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to the roll of honour of those whom I mentioned—I am happy to do so—and who have been pressing hard on this matter.
I have nothing more to say to the House, other than that we have done the right thing tonight, and I hope that the House will approve the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payment Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

Coal Industry

  BRUNEI (APPEALS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees),
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Ordered,
  That Mr. Harry Barnes be added to the Select Committee on European Legislation. —[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Health Service (South Glamorgan)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
1.36 am
Mr. Alun Michael: I hope that this debate as the latest in a series of attempts to resolve the future of the Health Service in south Glamorgan will have achieved its primary purpose by the time the Minister sits down and that we will at last have a decision on the 10-year hospital plan.
Massive disquiet has built up during nearly two years since public consideration of the health authority's 10-year plan started. It is more than 10 months since the document reached the Secretary of State for Wales. At that time, I urged him to reject the plan and to send the health authority back to the drawing board because of the manifest defects contained within it. Indeed, this is already a second attempt as, in the words used by the Secretary of State for Wales in his letter to me on 29 June, south Glamorgan's first round plan
"was not approved because of significant inherent weaknesses"
That means that the future of the Health Service in south Glamorgan has been under a cloud of uncertainty for far too long and desperately requires an injection of support and confidence from the Government. The Minister will be aware of many requests for a proper sense of urgency to be given to the matter. I refer to the terms of early-day motion 990 in my name and early-day motion 880 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith).
The Minister will be aware also that concern was highlighted during the Vale of Glamorgan by-election, when the public gave their views to the Government in no uncertain terms. That concern was partly to do with local issues, including the future of Sully hospital, but it was accentuated by massive public rejection of the Health Service White Paper. After the election, a plea to the Secretary of State for Wales to back off was given in early-day motion 879.
It appears, however, that the Government are hell-bent on introducing the proposals of the Health Service White Paper into Wales, and neither the Secretary of State for Wales nor the Minister can avoid complicity in that intent which undermines and threatens confidence in the Health Service. The Secretary of State for Wales, in his letter to me on 29 June about the planning activities of health authorities in Wales, states that strategies will have to be "framed in the light of the White Paper".
He goes on to state that
"the fundamental principles of the NHS remain unchanged under the White Paper,"
which appears to be a ritual incantation by which Government Ministers hope to evade criticism and is simply untrue. But he then confirms that
"the future roles of those involved in securing the delivery of service will change, and it is recognised that these changes will require a reorientation of the planning process to a new environment".
Put into simple English, that means that, during the 10 months that the 10-year plan has been in the Minister's in-tray, things have changed and it now needs to be assessed against the background of the White Paper proposals.
I challenge the Minister, in his reply to this debate, to
946
give just that context. I have already quoted the Secretary of State for Wales in support of my contention that we need to know how the White Paper will operate in Wales in order to judge the Government's decision on the hospital plan, but if further evidence is needed, just look at his words in the Welsh day debate on 1 March when he promised an early debate, confirmed that special factors in Wales required the White Paper to be implemented in a different way from England, and promised us separate and specific documents setting out how this would work. We are still waiting; everyone working in the Health Service in Wales is still waiting and the public in Wales are still waiting.
In a letter bearing the same date, ironically, Mr. John Wyn Owen, director of the NHS in Wales, stated:
"detailed implementation of the proposals has to reflect the different organisational arrangements and the needs and circumstances of different parts of the United Kingdom".
The hope in the Welsh Office bunker now appears to be that it may get away with just the vague generalisations about Wales in chapter 11 of the White Paper. However, that just is not anywhere near adequate and I can tell the Minister that the Government simply will not get away with it. Let him now, tonight, tell us what has been decided about the south Glamorgan 10-year plan and precisely how that will fit into his right hon. Friend's plans for the Health Service in Wales as a whole.
There are many points to be clarified, hut, just to give a flavour, it would help if he will say tonight that there will be no hospital opt-outs in Wales. That will help us assess the validity of the hospital pattern in the county. The Secretary of State for Wales has tried to convey a softer tone than his colleagues in the Department of Health, but that is only skilful packaging unless his policies and decisions are to be different. As far as south Glamorgan is concerned, I demand that the Minister come clean and tell us how our Health Service will be run in future.
Coming to the contents of the 10-year plan, I will briefly list the main concerns and objections to the draft plan, and ask the Minister to ensure that his response includes specific reference to these points which were made formally to his colleagues at the Welsh Office over the past two years, so they should have been anticipated for him.
First, has the over-ambitious plan for a new district general hospital in the docks been rejected? The Minister should note that the unanimous view of the consultants, academics and others I have spoken to is that if it is built the health authority will not have the money to run it without serious damage and ward closures at the two existing district hospitals at Llandough and Heath—what a group of consultants described as
"bleeding the existing services of all development just as happened when the Heath opened".
Has he taken into full account the reported views of clinicians on the plan? Will he also note that, for two years, development land has been blighted because of this particular proposal and Cardiff has lost actual jobs—I have been into the facts—because of this delay? Has he questioned the health authority on its extremely sketchy evaluation of the medipark which it proposes, but for which there is not room, and what is the result of his evaluation? I have been promised a response from the health authority on this, but it is still awaited and I hope its work has been more dependable and goes into greater detail than appears on present evidence.

947
Secondly, has the Welsh Office provided an answer to the question of how to provide south Glamorgan with proper, modern accident and emergency facilities? The Minister may recall that the whole rationale for a new DGH was that it needed to put such facilities somewhere. I have made alternative suggestions in order to provoke proper discussion. Has a proper job now been done on this matter?
Thirdly, has the Welsh Office undertaken a proper evaluation of the costs and practicalities of running the services set out in the plan as approved or amended by the Secretary of State's decision, which we now eagerly await? Will he give me an assurance that this information will be published so that the basis of his decision can be seen and understood? Is the Minister aware of the numerous challenges to the financial basis of the draft plan and has he been into this fully?
Fourthly, has the Welsh Office clarified the role of the neighbourhood hospitals referred to in the plan and will the Minister share that clarification with us? He must be aware that the vagueness on this point has caused great concern. The relationship between the neighbourhood hospitals and community services is not clear. Nor is the expectations on family doctors. The plan for the neighbourhood hospital in Barry is now quite well advanced, so these expectations should be made clear in the Welsh Office decision tonight. Does he not agree that it is ludicrous to conclude this expensive review of hospitals without also undertaking a serious review of primary care, and has he noted the worry on this point expressed by the college of medicine, the family practitioner committee and the local medical committee among others?
Fifthly, what is the timetable for the provision of neighbourhood hospitals? Does the Secretary of State accept the health authority criterion of one per 40,000 population? Does the plan now include a detailed timetable for their provision? This is a point I have pushed repeatedly, as it would be unacceptable to approve a plan which involves the closure of hospitals like the Royal Hamadryad without knowing that they are to be replaced with something better both in terms of health care and in terms of the living environment.
Sixthly, does the decision guarantee a secure future for Llandough hospital and Sully hospital? The Minister will be aware that these are two of the most appreciated and best loved hospitals in the country, and we want them retained. He will also be aware that the proposal to close Sully is the single most unpopular recommendation in the original plan. Tied to Llandough, it can have a secure future with its present usages, plus an expanded role in recuperation and therapy—where could there be a better site?—and it can provide a site for the neighbourhood hospital for the east of the vale of Glamorgan. I warn the Minister not to trifle with the views of people in my area and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan by giving us a decision that fails to deal satisfactorily with Sully.
Seventhly, will the Minister assure me that the decision takes into account the present constraint on nursing budgets and puts that right? It would be ludicrous to have a decision on plant and buildings which fails to deal with this point. At present, the nursing budget for Llandough,
948
for instance, is inadequate to pay the agreed number of staff because it is assumed that everyone is on the mid point of the scale. In fact, the hospital has stable staff, and this crazy system is a penalty for having loyal and well motivated nurses. It is a penalty for success, and that is why one ward is closed, staffing is on a knife-edge and the loyalty of people is being tested to the extreme. With the Welsh Office insisting on £2·1 million of cuts in this financial year, it looks as if the Government have a deliberate policy of uncertainty and demoralisation, so will the Minister offer us some reassurance and reverse this trend? Will he agree with me that any plan will have its problems if it is based on inadequate funding which continues to fall further and further behind the need?
Eighthly, does the decision take account of the need for the integration of the hospital plan—for the proposals from the health authority cannot be properly termed a health plan—with the services provided by family doctors and other community-based health services? There are many detailed concerns on this front of which the Welsh Office is well aware, and a decision which fails to answer this point will be empty and meaningless. Again, the White Paper is relevant. One doctor told me at the weekend that for the first time he wondered whether it was worth carrying on rather than taking early retirement because the Government will devalue the preventive and developmental work he has enjoyed, force him away from the patient care which brought him into medicine and push him into being a part-time accountant.
Will the Minister reassure us and tell us he is listening to the passionately expressed views of doctors and that Wales will be spared the policy of conflict and insult being pursued by the Secretary of State for Health and his pale shadow in Wales, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan)? It is impossible to underline this particular point enough. I have met doctors and received letters from doctors and listened to doctors. They resent the failure of the Government to listen to the voice of experience, they resent the threat to the relationship between doctor and patient, they reject the naive assumption that better health care will result from making a doctor undertake accountancy tasks, and they stress, from a professional point of view, that the man and woman in the street is right to fear the introduction of shopping around for the best buy when applied to medical treatment.
Will the Minister agree that we can do without this approach and that, in Wales at least, doctors will be regarded as human beings and professionals who need to be involved in the future design of our Health Service? That positive approach to doctors, I urge the Minister, is essential to make any plan work. Hundreds of my constituents have written sensible and thoughtful letters supporting the doctors' argument. Will he also reflect on the words of a surgeon who recently stressed to me that, as well as the nurses and technicians, the porters and ancillary workers are also vital members of his team, and that he was shocked and ashamed at the figures on their pay packets. Will the Minister set this plan in the context of humanity and teamwork?
Ninthly, will the Minister accept that the Welsh Office decision—unless it refers the whole business back to the health authority—must involve wholesale changes to the plan and that he should therefore allow a period of public discussion and comment before the Welsh Office decisions become final? I appreciate that individual closures, for instance, are subject to a specific procedure of comment

949
even after the overall plan is agreed, but the overall plan is fundamental to the future of our Health Service in south Glamorgan and should be seen to stand or fall on its own merits as an overall plan.
Tenth and finally, will the Minister tell us whether we will now have a plan which allows the public and everyone in the Health Service to plan ahead with confidence and enthusiasm, or is it a flexible friend for the administrators to manipulate as they will? He will be aware that the plan has been described by the health authority both in terms of certainty and uncertainty, and it is very important for us to know how dependable the decisions in it are. Will the Minister be very specific on this point?
I have concentrated on the main aspects of the plan, but the Minister must know that there are serious worries on all aspects of the future of our Health Service. Ambulance services, waiting lists, outpatient clinics, the pay of ancillary staff—described to me by one senior administrator as "scandalously and dangerously low"—community services, properly integrated paediatric services, preventative medicine, services for the elderly, specific services for women, and the threat to stability of the new general practitioners' contract are all important, too.
The key to the whole way in which the Health Service operates is the problem of chronic underfunding. Ministers may reflect the blinkered approach of the Prime Minister and claim that there is no problem of underfunding, but there is a serious problem and Ministers who ignore that basic problem and allow the Health Service to bleed to death will not easily be forgiven, certainly in Wales.
It will not be enough for Ministers to claim that decision-making and the deployment of resources have been devolved to the health authority. The Secretary of State appoints his majority to the health authority, and will do so even more under the White Paper. They are his creatures and most would not be there if elected, so he has to carry the can. The Health Service is the best-loved public service in south Glamorgan, and we want it treated with care and respect.
My constituents in Cardiff, South and Penarth want to know that they can depend on a well-planned Health Service in south Glamorgan, funded adequately to meet their particular needs as and when required, and staffed by people who are as much appreciated by the Government and the health authority as they are by the general public. They want that service set within a Welsh Health Service that is designed to meet the needs of the people of Wales. The Minister's announcements in answer to this debate will be totally inadequate unless I can carry back reassurances to them on each of those points.
1.52 am
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman has expressed his concern about the future of the Health Service in south Glamorgan and, indeed, a wider concern. I am sure that he recognises that the decisions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on South Glamorgan health authority's strategic plan and the future of cardiac services in south Wales are all-important in that context. It was my right hon. Friend's intention to announce his decisions on those matters today. However, I am sure that it would be helpful to the House if I outlined the main points now.
950
Some 59 representations have been received by my right hon. Friend about the strategic plan since it was submitted in October 1988. Those were made by a wide range of people and organisations, including hon. Members, members of the public, community health councils, local councillors and individual medical personnel.
My hon. Friend welcomes the broad objectives underlying the guiding principles for the 10-year strategy as set out in the plan. Those are reprovision of the accident and emergency service; early provision of a new cardiac unit; improved specialty groupings; enhancement of academic and research facilities; improved condition of the estate; and minimum revenue costs in order to finance high-level capital expenditure.
My right hon. Friend has agreed that future acute services should be rationalised and concentrated on three major acute hospital sites—the University hospital of Wales, Llandough, and a new hospital on a third site to be decided by the authority. The new hospital, which will have an important teaching function, will provide accident and emergency services with related specialties from a location with good road communications with the rest of the county.
My right hon. Friend has also agreed and welcomed the concept of neighbourhood hospitals which bring elements of health care closer to local communities and welcomes, in broad terms, the more involved role intended for general practitioners and primary health care teams. However, he feels that the authority should work closely with the South Glamorgan local medical committee and family practitioner committee working party on neighbourhood hospitals in drawing up those plans.
On regional services, the authority's proposals are broadly in line with departmental policies, and we would expect South Glamorgan district health authority to continue to play a major role in providing regional services to patients from all parts of Wales.
One aspect of the strategic plans that attracted particular attention was the suggestion that the main cardiac surgery and cardiology unit should he moved to Llandough hospital from the University hospital of Wales, in conflict with the Department's existing policy of development at the UHW. Clearly the location of the regional cardiac unit would have a significant effect on the strategic plan as a whole.
Before commenting on my right hon. Friend's decision on cardiac services in south Wales, I shall correct a false impression created by some hon. Members. Since the then Secretary of State for Wales accepted in 1984 the Welsh Medical Committee's report on cardiac services, it has been Welsh Office policy to expand the unit at the UHW. There has been considerable success in increasing the number of open-heart operations performed there. During the 1980s, it has doubled. However, it has not expanded rapidly enough, and there have been difficulties in overcoming the obstacles to increased throughput. It is not true to say that no progress has been made or that there has been no investment. Real development has been achieved and we funded it—but we want to do better because the toll of death and disability from heart disease in Wales demands it.
My right hon. Friend accepts the Royal College of Physicians' estimates of required throughput, and he has slightly improved on it so that we can aim at achieving 1,200 open-heart operations per year. My right hon. Friend noted the royal college's recommendation that the

951
centre of excellence that Wales needs should be located at the University hospital of Wales, where the necessary clinical, diagnostic and other support services would be available, and which is the preferred academic base. Most respondents to the consultation supported that view, and so does my right hon. Friend. He believes that the UHW, not Llandough hospital, is the right location for the main cardiac unit.
The royal college report argued that such a unit should perform all the open-heart operations required. At 1,200 adult and paediatric open-heart operations per year, it would be a very sizeable unit. Not uniquely so, but large—particularly in the context of the UHW. The health authority argued in its strategic plan that that was not practicable, and my right hon. Friend shares that view. He considers that it would distort the critical balance of the UHW and that the construction phase would cause unacceptable disruption to services and to the comfort of patients and staff. As a consequence, he decided that the adult unit at UHW should be expanded to perform 800 open-heart operations a year and that a second unit should be built after a thorough appraisal of the options.
The health authority has today been asked to set the development of the main unit in train. In addition, it has been invited to submit proposals for increasing the number of cardiac operations commissioned through the authority from 600 to 800 a year.
South Glamorgan health authority's plan contains broad proposals for the closure of hospitals and other substantial variations in the service provided by the district health authority. My right hon. Friend's decision on the overall strategy, including his approval in principle to the rationalisation proposals, in no way removes the need for the health authority to secure individual approval for such changes at the appropriate time. If the authority decides to pursue a particular change, each proposed closure or substantial variation in the service provided must be subject to separate and detailed formal consultation nearer the time of implementation before they could be effected. In the event of local opposition, my right hon. Friend would consider appeals and decide the matter.
Copies of my right hon. Friend's decisions on the strategic plan and cardiac services in south Wales will be available from the Vote Office later today. Following my right hon. Friend's decisions, the future planning work to be undertaken by the health authority will take account of the elements of the submitted plan on which he has called for further work. These will he included in a full and revised strategy as part of the second round of strategic planning in common with the other district health authorities of Wales. The preparation of the new strategy
952
will enable the authority to take full account of the likely changes brought about by the Government's White Paper "Working for Patients" and the guidance given by my right hon. Friend will provide a firm basis for the authority to review its plan. We look forward to receiving the authority's new plan in due course. Meanwhile, later this year, the Welsh Office proposes to issue guidance for all authorities for undertaking the second strategic planning round. It will, of course, be essential that a close dialogue is maintained between the district health authority and the Welsh Office.
I sincerely hope that all who are concerned with, or have an interest in, the future pattern of health services in south Glamorgan will see my right hon. Friend's decision as a clear and sound basis on which to build and develop an up-to-date service for the future.
Mr. Michael: Why has the two general district hospitals option, favoured by most professionals, been rejected? Will the Minister confirm that the site of the third GDH will not now be at the Cardiff docks? What is his decision on Sully hospital? Many people await that announcement. Has the hon. Gentleman fully evaluated the costs? Has a decision been taken on the programme for neighbouring hospitals to meet the requirements throughout the county?
Mr. Roberts: I have covered the point about the neighbourhood hospitals.
The plan says that some 2,400 acute beds will be required in the south Glamorgan area. We believe that that figure is somewhat excessive and that it should be about 2,100. Even so, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise, if those beds were to be divided between two hospitals, it would mean about 1,000 acute beds each. That would be a very large hospital, bearing in mind that the University hospital of Wales has some 880 acute beds. That is the basis of the decision in favour of three hospitals, rather than two. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman where the third hospital will be located. Indeed, we have not told the authority as much. It is for the authority to decide. We have, however, stated that the hospital must be sited in a place where access is good.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noted what I said about the closure proposals, and that certainly applies to Sully hospital and any other hospital.
As for financing of the strategic plan, it is difficult to anticipate all the financing details in a 10-year plan, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me for a revised and more robust financial plan. That is amply described in the decision letter.
We hope thereby and with these decisions to build up a worthy service which can realistically be achieved for the benefit of the people for whom it is provided.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Initiation Rites)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has of initiation rites in police forces; and what procedures there are for ensuring that young recruits are able to complain to an independent person.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no evidence that this kind of conduct is widespread but, where it occurred, it would be likely to constitute a disciplinary offence. A police officer who was the victim of such an offence would be expected to bring the matter to the attention of a supervising officer or his Police Federation representative. In addition, every police officer has the right to ask for an interview with HM inspector of constabulary, during the annual inspection of the force, to discuss any grievance over his treatment.

  Wandsworth Prison (Staffing)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present position of staffing levels at Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are 445 officers, including principal and senior officers, at Wandsworth compared with 437 at 1 April 1989. The total full and part-time staff at the prison now stands at 584.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department expects to reply to the current year's report by the board of visitors of Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I shall be writing shortly to the chairman to thank him for the 1988 report of the board of visitors. The recommendations of the board are receiving detailed consideration.

  West Midlands (Chief Constable)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of the West Midlands; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend last met the chief constable on 16 September 1988 in the course of a visit to the West Midlands police force. A range of topics was discussed as is usual in such occasions.

  Passport Applications
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passport applications by United Kingdom citizens now remain uncleared.

  Mr. Renton
  The latest available figures are for the week ended 2 July, when about 500,000 applications remained 422
  outstanding, a reduction of over 36,000 from the previous week. Following the settlement of the recent industrial dispute at the passport offices, efforts are being made to reduce the backlog of applications as quickly as possible, and a number of special measures are being taken to ease the difficulties facing the travelling public. These were described in the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 4 July, at columns 99–100.

  Nazi War Crimes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report he has now received regarding allegations of Nazi war crimes committed by those now resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on 27 June 1989 at column 399.

  Section 11 Money
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much section 11 money has been made available to(a) local education authorities and (b) other bodies; and for what purposes in the past year, five, 10 and 15 years ago, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The amount of grant paid under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for 1987–88, the most recent year for which actual expenditure figures are available, and for five, 10 and 15 years previously was as follows:

  Year

  Total grunt £

  Education £

  Other £

  1972–73

  7,787,873

  5,904,346

  1,883,527

  1977–78

  24,745,627

  20,777,102

  3,973,525

  1982–83

  65,817,318

  51,342,459

  14,474,859

  1987–88

  72,851,394

  55,052,417

  17,798,977

  The majority of section 11 funded posts involve educational expenditure and are mainly concerned with the teaching of English as a second language. Grant is also paid for posts concerned with bilingual classroom assistance, adult education, youth work, education welfare and home-school liaison.

  Other principal users for section 11 apart from education span the range of local authority responsibilities including social services, business development, housing and environmental health, translation and interpretation services. The Government are presently considering the results of the scrutiny report into section 11 funding and will announce its conclusions in due course.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the times of sunrise and sunset on the first day of each month in 1992 in(a) Dumfries, (b) Edinburgh. (c) Dundee, (d) Aberdeen, (e) Inverness, (f) Thurso and (g) Lerwick, respectively, under (i) the status quo and (ii) single-double summer time as described in his Department's Green Paper on summer time.
  423
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not immediately available. I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Drinking (Public Places)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the safer cities initiative and the ban on drinking in public places.

  Mr. John Patten
  The experimental byelaw in Stockton-on-Tees, which makes it an offence to drink alcohol in designated public places, came into force on 5 April. The byelaw is in force in five other local authority areas—Bath, Coventry, Restormel (Cornwall), Rushmoor (Hampshire) and Scarborough—and will be in force in Chester shortly. The experiment is due to run for two years and will be closely monitored by participating local authorities, the police and the Home Office. Preliminary results are encouraging. The byelaw has been shown to be popular in most places and public drinking on the streets has largely stopped: the relatively few number of police requests to desist have almost always been heeded. There have been just six prosecutions, three in Bath and three in Coventry. A Home Office crime prevention unit paper containing the results of a survey, of Coventry city centre users, on the byelaw has recently been published. The survey shows that nine out of 10 users of the city centre who were questioned welcomed the introduction of the ban.

  The safer cities programme is making good progress. Three projects are fully operational, at Bradford, Nottingham and Wolverhampton. They have already started crime prevention work there, most of it improving physical security but some directed to lessening the fear of crime and to preventing offending by young people. Projects at Lewisham and Birmingham begin this month. Five further projects are due to begin operating by the end of September, and six more by the start of the new year.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the names of the people and of the stations that have been granted a community radio licence.

  Mr. Renton
  The incremental local radio scheme is administered by the IBA. To date they have offered franchises to the following:

  Name of applicant

  Proposed station name

  Coverage area

  Clement Mclarty

  FTP

  Bristol

  Ravinder Jain

  West London Radio

  Hounslow/Ealing/ Southall

  Mike Shaft

  Sunset Radio

  Manchester

  Daniel Macleod

  Stirling Community Radio

  Stirling

  Ashok Joshi

  Radio Harmony

  Coventry

  Dr. Zannetos Tofallis

  London Greek Radio in association with WNK Radio

  Haringey

  Stephen Oates

  Isle of Wight Radio

  Isle of Wight

  424

  Name of applicant

  Proposed station name

  Coverage area

  Alan Fry

  Sunderland Community Radio

  Sunderland

  John Simpson

  Belfast Community Radio

  Belfast

  Pervez Akhtar

  Bradford City Radio

  Bradford

  Lester Cowling

  KNBC Radio

  Kettering

  Charles Turner

  KFM Radio

  Stockport

  Des Shepherd

  North East Essex Community Radio

  Tendring

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing(a) how many cable franchises have been granted, (b) which communities they serve, (c) how many cable franchises are switched on, (d) which communities they serve, (e) the estimated subscribers in each case and (f) whether interactive services are provided.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand from the cable authority that a total of 41 cable franchises have been granted, of which 16 have been licensed by the cable authority, and 11 of which are operational. A further 30 franchises have been advertised by the authority. The granting of a cable franchise has no standing in law. It is simply an indication that the cable authority intends to award a licence under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 to the franchise holder provided it meets certain conditions.

  Franchises granted but licence not yet awarded

  Andover (IVS Enterprises)

  Barking, Dagenham, Bexley, Redbridge (East London Telecoms Ltd.)

  Barnet, Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham (City Centre Comms Ltd.)

  Birmingham and Solihull (Birmingham Cable Ltd.)

  Bolton (Bolton Telecable Ltd.)

  Bristol, Bath, Weston Super Mare etc. (West Country Cable Ltd.)

  Cambridge, Ely, Huntingdon, Newmarket etc. (Cambridge Cable Ltd.)

  Cardiff and Penarth (British Cable Services Ltd.)

  Chatham, Gravesend, Maidstone etc. (South Estuary Cable Ltd.)

  Cheltenham and Gloucester (Cotswold Cable Ltd.)

  Crawley, Horley and Gatwick Airport (Mid Downs Cable Ltd.)

  Cumbernauld, Kilsyth, Airdale and Coatbridge (Cable North Ltd.)

  Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven (Cable North Ltd.)

  East Lancashire (East Lancashire Cablevision)

  Edinburgh (Cablevision Scotland plc)

  Greenwich and Lewisham (South East London Cable Co. Ltd.)

  Kingston and Richmond (United Cable Television (London South) plc)

  Lambeth and Southwark (Lambeth and Southwark Cable Ltd.)

  Merton and Sutton (United Cable Television (London South) plc)

  Motherwell, Hamilton, East Kilbride etc. (Cable North Ltd.)

  Northampton (Cable Television Ltd.)

  Preston, Chorley and Leyland (Lancashire Cable Ltd.)

  Reading, Basingstoke, Bracknell etc. (Cable Thames Valley Ltd.)

  Southend, Brentwood, Chelmsford etc. (North Estuary Cable Ltd.)

  425

  Wandsworth (Wandsworth Cable Ltd.)

  Licensed Cable Franchises

  *Aberdeen (Aberdeen Cable Services Ltd.)

  Belfast (Ulster Cablevision)

  *Camden (Cable Camden Ltd.) (pilot scheme only)

  *Coventry (Coventry Cable Ltd.)

  *Croydon (United Cable Television (London South) plc)

  *Ealing (Cabletel Communications Ltd.)

  *Glasgow (Clyde Cablevision Ltd.)

  *Guildford, West Surrey and East Hants (British Cable Services Ltd.)

  Kingston and Chelsea (City Centre Communications)

  Luton and South Bedfordshire (Cablevision Bedfordshire Ltd.)

  *Newham and Tower Hamlets (East London Telecommunications Ltd.)

  *Slough, Windsor, Maidenhead etc. (Windsor Television Ltd.)

  Southampton and Eastleigh (Southampton Cable Ltd.)

  South Liverpool (Merseyside Cablevision Ltd.)

  *Swindon (Swindon Cable Ltd.)

  *Westminster (Westminster Cable Co.)

  *Operational system

  I understand that about 66,000 households are connected to broadband cable systems. The figures for individual cable systems are commercially confidential.

  Interactive Services

  Windsor Television, Cable Camden and East London

  Name

  Dates of service with the Serious Crimes Squad

  Detective Chief Inspector (later Detective Superintendent) Moore

  1 April 1974 to 9 February 1975

  25 December 1979 to 21 November 1982

  Detective Superintendent Kelly

  13 May 1974 to 9 January 1977

  Detective Superintendent Watson

  14 October 1974 to 9 January 1977

  Detective Sergeant Hornby

  14 August 1973 to date

  Sergeant Langford

  no service with the Squad

  Detective Chief Inspector Ball

  1 February 1977 to 22 January 1978

  Detective Constable French

  10 June 1974 to 5 February 1978

  Detective Constable Brand

  13 May 1974 to 7 May 1984

  Detective Sergeant (now Chief Inspector) Bunn

  no service with the Squad

  Detective Sergeant (now DCI Bennett)

  1968 – 1976

  1988 to date

  Detective Constable Buxton

  no service with the Squad

  Detective Sergeant (now Superintendent) Millichamp

  8 September 1970 to 31 October 1971

  Detective Constable Sutcliffe

  6 January 1969 to 28 October 1979

  Detective Constable Woodwiss

  no service with the Squad

  Detective Sergeant (now DCI) Morris

  no service with the 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 whether Detective Sergeant Brian Morton was in Queen's road police station when the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings were being interviewed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that general records that would show the whereabouts of officers are destroyed after seven years. The information requested is therefore not available.
  426

  Telecommunication offer an alternative telephone service.

  Westminster Cable offers areas to Prestel and also, for some subscribers, remote access to a videodisc library.

  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 during which years the following officers served in the west midlands serious crimes squad: Detective Chief Inspector John Moore (retired), Detective Superintendent James Kelly, Detective Superintendent Alan Watson, Detective Sergeant Michael Hornby, Detective Constable Rex Langford, Detective Chief Inspector Roger Ball (retired), former Detective Sergeant Michael French, former Detective Constable John Brand, former Detective Sergeant Roy Bunn, former Detective Sergeant Ray Bennett, former Detective Constable Alan Buxton (retired), former Detective Sergeant David Millichamp, former Detective Constable Thomas Sutcliffe, former Detective Constable Terence Woodwiss and former Detective Sergeant Colin Morris.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that the information is as follows:

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 5 July, if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the west midlands as to which officer involved in the Ronnie Boldon case was also involved in the questioning of those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 5 July, if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the west midlands police force as to which two officers involved in the Derek Gordon case were also involved in the questioning of those convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.
  427
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that there was anything untoward in their involvement in the matters referred to.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 July, if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the west midlands as to how many complaints have been received against Detective Sergeant Michael Hornby since 1974; what action was taken in 1980 on the one occasion he was disciplined; and what was the nature of the complaint against him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that the recorded information relating to the earlier years covered by the hon. Member's question is not fully comprehensive and it is not therefore possible to establish the exact number of complaints made against Detective Sergeant Hornby. As discipline records are destroyed after seven years, the other information requested is not available.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 July, if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands police for a report as to what reason Police Cadet Adrian Dart gave for his resignation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that Mr. Dart was a probationary constable who resigned from the force in March 1984 and that he is now pursuing a claim for wrongful dismissal. In these circumstances, it would not be right to comment on the circumstances of his resignation.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 July, if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands police on the nature of the offences for which Detective Superintendent Kelly was reprimanded.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It would not be right to give details of the offences. I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that they have no bearing on the current allegations of malpractice within the serious crime squad, and that Mr. Kelly was not a member of the squad at the time.

  Parole Decisions
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners whose parole eligibility date has passed are awaiting decisions by the parole board on recommendations by the local review committee; and what is the current average time lapse between that date and the decision being made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Statistics are not readily available in the form requested. For further information, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 4 July 1989 at column 95.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of keeping prisoners after their parole eligibility date whilst awaiting decisions by the parole board on recommendations by the local review committee.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not possible to distinguish the cost of keeping prisoners eligible for parole from that of 428
  other prisoners. The average weekly cost of keeping a prisoner in a penal establishment in 1987–88, the latest period for which information is available, was £275.

  National Stud
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to privatise the National Stud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Experiments on Animals
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the second annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee; and when he intends to lay copies of the report before Parliament.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have laid before Parliament copies of the report, which is published today by HMSO as HC458.

  This report reflects the continuing contribution which the Animal Procedures Committee is making towards the effective operation of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the protection of animals used in scientific procedures and the debate over how animal procedures should be regulated.

  I welcome the report's conclusion that
  "this country has an up-to-date and sound legislative framework for regulating and controlling all scientific procedures involving living animals"
  and I am grateful to the committee for its work.

THE ARTS

  Museum of the Moving Image
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the museum of the moving image has achieved the targets set out for it at its inception.

  Mr. Luce
  The Museum of the Moving Image had a target of 435,000 visitors in its first year and this target is expected to be reached by the end of July, two months ahead of schedule. Over 53,000 schoolchildren have visited the museum emphasising its educational appeal.

  Libraries
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will state the names of persons and their occupational posts who are to serve on the Library and Information Services Council for England working party on public library objectives, and the terms of reference of this working party.

  Mr. Luce
  The Library and Information Services Council (England) has appointed the following to serve on its working party on public library objectives:

  Mr. Royston Brown, Management Consultant (Chairman)

  Mr. A. R. Blick, Co-ordinator of Information Services, Beecham Group plc

  Mr. R. Bowden, Deputy Chief Executive, the Library Association

  Mr. W. A. Butler, Assistant to the Chief Inspector of Audit, The Audit Commission

  Mr. P. F. Cox, City Librarian, Westminster City Council

  Mr. A. Howson, Director of Libraries and Museums, Falkirk District Council (nominated by the Library and Information Services Council (Scotland))

  429

  Mr. D. Leabeater, Senior Research and Development Officer, National Consumer Council

  Mr. D. Lindley, Head of Library Services, Books for Students

  Dr. R. A. McKee, Chief Librarian and Arts Officer, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  Mr. D. Welch, Chief Librarian, South Eastern Education and Library Board, County Down (nominated by the Library and Information Services Council (Northern Ireland))

  Mr. W. G. Williams, County Library and Museums Officer, Clwyd County Council (nominated by the Library and Information Services Council (Wales))

  The terms of reference are: to examine the present nature of current public library objectives (including unpublished material), and to develop a model set of objectives from which any library authority might select those appropriate to its own circumstances, and which could provide a starting point for the development of exclusive local objectives. The model set of objectives should preferably be in the form of a manual for publication, and the objectives should be capable of performance measurement.

  To suggest ways of testing/developing/promoting the model set of objectives.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to disperse Civil Service manpower to the South Western region.

  Mr. Brooke
  As I announced to the House on 9 February 1989, at columns 751–52, individual departments are reviewing the location of their work with a view to finding locations offering easier labour markets and better value for money, and departmental Ministers will be announcing their decisions.

  Exchange Rate (Canada)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of exchange between the United Kingdom and Canada at present; and what it was one year ago.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 July 1989]: At close of business on 5 July the exchange rate was C$2.0570/£ against C$1.9252/£ a year ago.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  LINK Schemes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all LINK schemes so far approved with the expenditure on each and the location of sites at which the research is carried out.

  Mr. Forth
  To date, 17 LINK programmes have been approved, with total expected expenditure of nearly £245 million. The list gives approved expenditure for each programme.

  Project selection under these announced programmes is still at an early stage, but already agreement has been reached with 60 collaborators from industry and the universities; these are also listed.
  430
  Participants in Link Projects

  Industry

  AB Electronic Components

  Allied Breweries

  Amersham International

  Bass

  Beaconsfield Instruments Ltd.

  Beechams

  British Petroleum

  British Biotechnology

  Campden Food & Drink RA

  Chell Instruments

  Courtaulds

  Cray Instruments & Control

  Dalgety-Spillers

  Enzymatix

  Express Foods

  Flour Milling & Breadmaking RA

  Foxboro Ford Motors

  Glaxo

  Guinness

  Heinz

  IFTEL Automation

  Imperial Chemical Industries

  International Biosynthetics

  Lyons Bakeries

  Lyons-Tetley

  Pedigree Petfoods

  Pfizer

  Phillips

  Queensgate Instruments

  Quest International

  Rank Taylor Hobson

  SBP

  Schlumberger

  Shell

  SIFAM

  Smiths Industries

  Spillers

  STC

  Tealgate

  Thorn-EMI

  Whitbread

  Science Base

  Universities of:

  Kent

  Warwick

  Exeter

  Leicester

  Surrey

  Leeds

  Manchester

  Hull

  Southampton

  Strathclyde

  Liverpool

  Oxford

  Nottingham

  Bradford

  Durham

  University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology. AFRC (Institute of Grassland & Animal Products).

  Food Research Institute.

  Link programmes

  Government funding £

  Private sector £

  Molecular Electronics

  10·0

  10·0

  Advanced Semiconductor materials

  12·0

  12·0

  Industrial Measurement Systems

  10·8

  10·8

  Eukaryotic Genetic Engineering

  2·3

  2·4

  Nanotechnology

  7·5

  7·5

  Biotransformations

  2·0

  2·0

  Personal Communications

  6·4

  6·4

  431

  Government funding £

  Private sector £

  Selective Drug Delivery and Targeting

  1·5

  1·5

  Construction, Maintenance and Refurbishment

  1·5

  1·5

  Food Processing Sciences

  7·0

  7·0

  Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration

  1·5

  1·5

  Optoelectronics

  15·0

  15·0

  Design of High Speed Machinery

  10·0

  10·0

  Structural Composites

  20·0

  20·0

  Biochemical Engineering

  7·5

  7·5

  Protein Engineering

  4·8

  4·8

  New Catalysts and Catalytic processes

  2·5

  2·5

  122·3

  122·4

  EEC Telecommunications Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is the value of the EEC telecommunications initiative programme; and how much he expects to be spent in Britain;

  (2) which regions of the United Kingdom are participating in the EEC telecommunication initiative; and if he will list the projects, with their programme spend value, in each region.

  Mr. Atkins
  The policy towards telecommunications in Europe adopted by the Council of Ministers is of significant value to the United Kingdom as a major influence on the liberalisation of European telecommunications markets.

  If the hon. Member has in mind direct financial receipts, the only EEC telecommunications initiative to provide funding on a regional basis is the Special Telecommunications Action for Regional Development (STAR). Northern Ireland, alone in the United Kingdom, qualifies for support under this programme, and has been allocated 25 mecu—about £16·9 million—of the 780 mecu —about £527 million—total programme funding.

  The only other exclusively telecommunications EEC initiative involving the provision of financial assistance is the Research and Development in Advanced Communications Technologies in Europe (RACE) programme of collaborative R and D projects. Total expenditure authorised by the Council of Ministers on the definition and main phases is 571 mecu—about £386 million. Of the 541 mecu allocated so far United Kingdom companies and other bodies may be expected to receive 161 mecu—about £105 million.

  Imports
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the following items sold in Britain in 1988 were imported(a) colour television sets, (b) electric toasters, (c) micro wave cookers, (d) goods vehicles, (e) cameras, (f) personal computers, (g) ball point pens, (h) pocket combs, (i) tooth brushes, (j) crockery, (k) cutlery and (l) saucepans.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is shown in the table.
  432

  Imports as a percentage of the United Kingdom market1

  Percentage

  Colour television sets

  39

  Micro wave cookers

  58

  Goods vehicles2

  40

  Ceramic table and kitchenware

  20

  Cutlery

  56

  Saucepans

  21

  1 For all except goods vehicles, the percentage is calculated as 100* imports/United Kingdom market with the United Kingdom market defined as

  United Kingdom Market = Manufacturers' sales plus Imports less Exports

  All figures are expressed in current price terms.

  2 Based on United Kingdom registration.

  Sources: DTI, SMMT.

  Task Force Scheme
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many jobs have been created in each task force area; how many were not funded by temporary employment programmes, including the employment training schemes; how many led to full-time and permanent, longer than one year, employment; how many were in effect self-employment; and how many went to black and ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 10 July 19891]: The information sought about the breakdown of jobs created by task forces is not available in the form requested, nor could it be practically obtained by the task forces. However, the table gives estimates of total anticipated jobs and training places created, and businesses helped directly by projects in each task force since inception.

  Jobs created

  Training places created

  Businesses assisted

  Bristol

  307

  1,034

  572

  Coventry

  379

  1,784

  83

  Doncaster

  536

  2,424

  1,372

  East Birmingham

  127

  1,319

  77

  Handsworth, Birmingham

  849

  1,069

  361

  Hartlepool

  301

  2,130

  590

  Chapeltown/Harehills, Leeds

  111

  822

  93

  Leicester

  606

  1,148

  260

  Middlesbrough

  432

  2,080

  60

  Moss Side, Manchester

  247

  3,229

  120

  North Kensington

  820

  2,500

  85

  North Peckham

  500

  3,600

  1,463

  Nottingham

  308

  1,855

  269

  Preston

  655

  1,315

  483

  Rochdale

  72

  890

  810

  Spitalfields

  232·5

  2,140

  324

  Wolverhampton

  408

  600

  115

  TOTAL

  6,890.5

  29,939

  7,137

  Separate records on ethnic minority jobs are not kept. However, the evaluation report on the Handsworth task force, prepared by PA Cambridge Economic Consultants—available in the House Library—noted that 69 per cent. of the jobs created by the task force, at the time of writing the report, were taken up by members of ethnic communities (paragraph 7.2.3).

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria have been used to select inner city areas for task force status.
  433
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: A range of criteria are used including the levels of local long-term unemployment, other indicators of deprivation and the ethnic minority proportion of the population. Task forces must also be located within the 57 urban priority areas.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total expenditure on inner city task forces in each year since their inception; how much of that expenditure has been provided from private sources; and how much has gone to national organisations and how much to local community organisations.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: Over £100 million has been committed to task force areas since their inception. The table shows total committed spend on task force projects by calendar year—the figures for 1986 are included in the 1987 total as they were not separately collected. Besides the financial contribution shown in the table, the private sector also provides other assistance such as secondees, advice, loan of premises/equipment etc.

  (£'000)

  1986–7

  1988

  11989

  Total

  Total spend committed

  35,254

  53,347

  14,103

  102,704

  Task Force contribution

  12,701

  20,207

  5,632

  38,540

  Private sector contribution

  4,591

  9,215

  2,336

  16,142

  Public sector contribution

  17,962

  23,925

  6,135

  48,022

  1 To 31 March 1989.

  Committed expenditure is counted for the year in which the project has received approval to go ahead, although not all the money may be spent in the same year. We do not keep separate information on how much money has gone to national or local organisations.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost of the advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative; and what has been the average cost per take-up.

  Mr. Forth
  Expenditure on advertising the enterprise initiative since January 1988 has been about £19 million. The enterprise initiative covers a number of schemes and services for firms and there is no single measure of take-up which would justify the calculation of an average cost.

WALES

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites in Wales are authorised to discharge radioactive liquid waste to the public sewer.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are currently 55 authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to dispose of liquid radioactive waste. The authorisations prescribe discharge into drainage systems which could include public sewers.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those
  434
  premises in Wales registered under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 being monitored by a commercial company on behalf of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The following sites are subject to monitoring by a contractor as part of the national environment monitoring programme conducted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  1. Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, Gwynedd.

  2. Wylfa nuclear power station, Gwynedd.

  3. Amersham International plc, South Glamorgan.

  4. Cilgwyn quarry waste disposal site, Gwynedd.

  None of the above sites is subject to registration under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, although the first three are subject to authorisation under the Act.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of premises in Wales registered under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; and if he will separately distinguish how many are sited in each parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are 640 registrations covering Wales under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Details are not maintained by parliamentary constituency. A list of registrations by county is provided in the DOE/ Welsh Office/Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution publication "List of Registrations in England and Wales issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 for the keeping and use of radioactive materials and mobile apparatus", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Audit
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of any premises in Wales currently subjected to an environmental audit by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are no premises in Wales currently subjected to an environmental audit by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Training Grants Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will detail all the submissions from each local education authority for funding of national priority areas under the training grants scheme and the amount of funding allocated for each submission.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The total expenditure to be supported under the local education authority training grants scheme is determined each year by my right hon. Friend. Expenditure under the scheme is divided between national priorities, as specified by my right hon. Friend, and local priorities which are determined by the authorities themselves. Eligible expenditure on training in Wales in 1989–90 will total £13·18 million, of which £5·58 million is expenditure on national priorities and £7·6 million on local priorities. Authorities are free to spend more on in-service teacher training than the amounts specified as eligible for specific grant under the scheme. Allocations are in the main calculated pro rata to the authorities' student population. The allocation of expenditure to each authority for 1989–90 is as follows:
  435

  Expenditure to be supported under the Training Grant Scheme in 1989–90 National priorities: £5·58 million—Local priorities: £7·60 million

  National priority areas

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  (a) School teachers

  1 Management

  82,060

  69,270

  90,210

  47,720

  119,890

  23,280

  78,570

  71,000

  582,000

  2 National curriculum

  164,260

  138,630

  180,580

  95,530

  239,990

  46,600

  157,280

  142,130

  1,165,000

  Assistants and Management

  3 National curriculum content

  226,300

  191,000

  248,780

  131,610

  330,630

  64,200

  216,670

  195,810

  1,605,000

  4 Religious education

  8,800

  7,420

  9,670

  5,150

  12,890

  5,000

  8,450

  7,620

  65,000

  5 Under fives

  10,150

  11,720

  12,750

  6,210

  23,200

  5,000

  9,520

  9,450

  88,000

  6 Special Needs Hearing

  33,000

  6,000

  9,000

  —

  34,000

  —

  12,000

  13,000

  107,000

  7 Special Needs Sight

  5,000

  6,000

  5,000

  2,000

  20,000

  14,000

  3,000

  15,000

  70,000

  8 Special Needs SLD

  6,000

  —

  41,000

  5,000

  13,000

  14,000

  15,000

  —

  94,000

  9 Special Needs Des Teaching

  11,450

  9,650

  12,570

  6,700

  16,750

  5,000

  10,980

  9,900

  83,000

  10 New Technology

  41,450

  34,990

  45,570

  24,110

  60,560

  11,760

  39,690

  35,870

  294,000

  11 Welsh

  26,670

  38,920

  19,600

  56,330

  30,120

  12,750

  20,150

  18,640

  223,000

  0(b) Further education teachers

  12 AFE

  52,430

  12,740

  73,500

  19,110

  162,680

  —

  107,800

  61,740

  490,000

  13 Management

  22,790

  15,290

  24,400

  8,970

  25,430

  6,910

  17,930

  25,280

  147,000

  14 Updating etc.

  30,070

  20,180

  32,200

  11,830

  33,560

  9,120

  23,670

  33,370

  194,000

  15 Special educational needs

  5,580

  3,740

  5,980

  2,200

  6,230

  1,690

  4,390

  6,190

  36,000

  (c) Other

  16 Drugs misuse

  13,950

  11,450

  15,320

  7,920

  20,550

  5,000

  13,440

  12,370

  100,000

  17 Youth and community

  9,690

  7,950

  10,640

  5,500

  14,280

  5,000

  9,340

  8,600

  71,000

  18 Education psychology

  7,000

  —

  —

  —

  16,000

  —

  —

  65,000

  88,000

  Local priority

  1,071,600

  881,600

  1,178,000

  608,000

  1,580,000

  296,400

  1,033,600

  950,000

  7,600,000

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals relating to the future organisation of the statutory agencies responsible for nature conservation and the countryside in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today announced our intention to reorganise the agencies responsible for nature conservation and countryside matters in Great Britain.

  Legislation will be brought before the House at the earliest opportunity to give effect to the proposed changes. Responsibilities for nature conservation and countryside matters in Wales are currently undertaken by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. These agencies are funded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. My right hon. Friend and I are agreed that the present functions of those two agencies in Wales should in the future be exercised by a single separate Welsh body appointed by and directly responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales. This new body will incorporate the functional responsibilities of the present offices in Wales of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission with full executive authority for its work in Wales, compared with the current advisory role of the two committees for Wales. This will give continuity to much of the work now carried out by the existing organisations and will provide valuable expertise for the new body. It also means that decisions affecting Wales will in future be taken in Wales. A single body attuned to the needs of the Principality will be of undoubted benefit to Wales.

  The proposals represent a significant change in arrangements and should result in improvements in the efficiency, accountability, and above all the sensitivity of
  436
  administration for conserving and managing the unique natural assets of Wales. The arrangements should also ensure that full regard is given to the protection of the environment without damage to our natural resources.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  El Salvador
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government support the United States Congress proposal to link aid to E1 Salvador to respect for human rights.

  Mr. Eggar
  Respect for human rights is one of several factors that we take into account when determining the level and nature of our bilateral aid to individual countries.

  Prime Minister of Pakistan (Visit)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Ministers of Her Majesty's Government intend to ask Pakistan to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to discuss the status of nuclear programme development in the sub-continent.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised non-proliferation matters with Ms. Bhutto during her visit.

  Karel and Jindriska Korinek
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Czech Government about the detention of Karel and Jindriska Korinek, in a psychiatric hospital; and if he will make a statement.
  437
  Mr. Eggar
  We have been in touch with the Czechoslovak authorities for some time about the Korineks, most recently on 6 July. We will continue to follow the case.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make inquiries of the Government of Indonesia about reports of killings, arrests and reported disappearances in Bacou, East Timor which began on 5 May.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are aware of these reports. Her Majesty's embassy has not been able to substantiate them.

SCOTLAND

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those nature reserves assisted by grant from the Nature Conservancy Council where it has been made a condition of grant that the shooting of birds or other creatures will continue.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 4 July 1989.

  Scottish Office Activities
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the brief, "The Scottish Office and its Activities," issued in June 1988; and whether he still intends to appoint consultants in terms of that brief to raise the profile of the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on Tuesday 7 March 1989, at column 483.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any plans to increase the maximum claim in the small claims procedure in the sheriff court; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The small claims procedure came into operation on 30 November 1988 and I understand that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has no plans at present to increase the upper financial limit of £750. The operation of the new procedure is being monitored by the central research unit of the Scottish Office and by a research team from the law schools of the universities of Strathclyde and Dundee.

  Pearl Fishing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has any proposals to issue licences for traditional pearl fishing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has considered proposals to place the freshwater mussel, margaritisera margaritisera, on the schedule of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as a protected species; and if he will make a statement.
  438
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am currently considering with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether increased protection should be afforded to the freshwater pearl mussel.

  Nature Conservation
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the present organisation of the statutory agencies responsible for nature conservation and countryside in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today announced our intention to reorganise the agencies responsible for nature conservation and countryside matters in Great Britain.

  With the growing interest and concern in all aspects of our environment, I am clear that we need a more integrated approach to nature conservation and countryside matters in Scotland. Our scenery, habitats and wildlife—indeed our natural resources as a whole—are priceless assets and they have characteristics which are distinctive to Scotland. We must ensure that we protect and manage them wisely. To achieve this the machinery of Government should be organised effectively and be on a basis that can best take account of Scottish conditions. I consider that the establishment of a single body with responsibility for the natural heritage in Scotland is the right approach. A single agency could take a more comprehensive view of the many issues presently facing us and help to secure our natural heritage, resources and countryside for the benefit of future generations. The experience and expertise of the existing agencies will complement each other in this task, giving an integrated approach to conservation and countryside matters in Scotland.

  I propose to create such an agency in two stages. First, as my right hon. Friend has announced, legislation will he brought before the House at the earliest opportunity to establish a separate Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland. The Government will ensure that the new Scottish body is fully equipped to continue to carry out its present duties towards nature conservation. I would then bring forward a Scottish Bill to merge the proposed Scottish Nature Conservancy Council with the Countryside Commission for Scotland to create a single natural heritage body. I would appoint its members and it would report directly to me. The new body will have full executive responsibility for its work in Scotland and be sponsored by my Department. Our proposals represent a significant change from present arrangements. They will result in substantial improvements in the effectiveness, accountability and, most important of all, in the sensitivity of administration in the vital task of conserving and managing Scotland's natural heritage.

  I am publishing a consultation paper inviting views on the principles of these proposals. Copies are being placed in the Library. I hope that there will be a large and positive response.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that(a) merchant seamen and (b) Royal Navy seamen, who are away from shore for more than six months in a year, are treated equally in respect of liability for the poll tax.
  439
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave him on 2 May 1989, Official Report, columns 17–18. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the decision of the registration officer has a right of appeal, first to the registration officer and then to the sheriff.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Loans
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many banks and building societies have indicated that they are willing to administer the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for the individual banks and other financial institutions to reach their own decisions in the light of the detailed negotiations now under way, but it is clear from the discussions that have already taken place that there is substantial interest in participating in the top-up loans scheme.

  Planning Courses
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current number of places on planning courses in universities and polytechnics; and what was the number in each of the previous three years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers of higher education students on planning courses were as follows:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Universities (GB)1: full-time and sandwich students

  1,316

  979

  1,002

  1,124

  Polytechnics (England)1: full-time and sandwich students

  2,180

  2,090

  2,075

  2,158

  part-time (including evening only) students

  951

  958

  924

  1,145

  1 The subject classification for universities was changed between 1984 and 1985.

  The figures for universities for 1984 are not therefore directly comparable with those for the later years. The subject classification for polytechnics differs from that for universities. There is therefore incomplete comparability between university and polytechnic figures.

  School Premises
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what sanctions the Government intend to use against local authorities and governing bodies which fail to bring their school premises up to the standard required by 1991 in accordance with the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981;

  (2) whether the Government intend to implement fully the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 by insisting that school premises are up to the minimum standard by 1991 as determined by those regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  The duty of ensuring that school premises conform to the standards prescribed by the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 rests with local education authorities and governors. Local authorities have been aware since 1981 of the requirements of the regulations.

  Immunisation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to amend the law relating to the statutory school starting age in order to make starting school dependent on certification of completion of a basic child immunisation programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to him today.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has made of the numbers of young people who will be in secondary education in 1990–91 beyond their 18th birthday; what are his estimates of the relevant numbers in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department projects that there will be some 19,600 pupils in English secondary schools in 1990–91 aged 18 or over at the start of the academic year. The corresponding numbers in 1991–92 and 1992–93 are projected to be 18,600 and 17,700 respectively.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the City of Durham constituency receive severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the precise form requested.

  The City of Durham constituency is served by the Department's local office in Durham but their boundaries are not conterminous. The numbers of people receiving severe disablement allowance at the Durham local office as at 31 May 1989, the latest date for which the information is available, were 449.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. The figure quoted may include a small number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Family Credit (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number of families are now in receipt of family credit and living in the area covered by Durham department of social security.

  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 area covered by the Durham local office was 705.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what safeguards, under the Data Protection Act, will exist to ensure that information will be confidential to Department of Social Security staff only when local Department of Social Security offices are computerised.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department keeps the security of its computer systems under constant review to ensure that
  441
  the confidentiality requirements of the Data Protection Act are met. For the computer system now being introduced into local offices, we have strict measures in place to limit access to records to authorised users. It would not be prudent to publish details of those security measures.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities are to be provided for non-English speakers and for those who are unable to communicate by telephone because of physical disability when local Department of Social Security offices are computerised.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Computerisation of the benefit system, and the relocation of work from some London offices, will not affect the way that people communicate with the Department. Interpretation facilities will be available for telephone calls routed to remote sites.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what safeguards will ensure an adequate service to the public should there be serious problems with the operation of new technology in local Department of Social Security offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Improving service to the public is a key objective in providing new technology for local offices. Safeguards have been built into the development of the computer systems to ensure that an adequate service to the public is maintained.

  The computer programmes have undergone rigorous test programmes which include simulated operations in a model office followed by pilot running in 23 local offices. Resilience has been built into the system to reduce the effects of equipment breakdown and contracts have been established with suppliers to ensure rapid response should breakdowns occur.

  In the event of a loss of computerisated support by natural disaster or other unavoidable incident, emergency plans are in place to maintain an adequate service to the public using clerical procedures.

  Estimated number of recipients by tenure and proportion of dwellings A. Supplementary Benefit (1985 data not available)

  Council Tenants

  Private Tenants

  Owned Outright

  With Mortgage

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent.

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent.

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent.

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent.

  1980

  1,513

  23

  460

  17

  330

  3

  134

  1

  1981

  1,764

  27

  535

  21

  348

  3

  196

  2

  1982

  1,980

  31

  574

  23

  388

  3

  237

  2

  1983

  1,952

  32

  548

  22

  424

  3

  243

  2

  1984

  2,053

  34

  589

  25

  442

  3

  278

  2

  1986

  2,206

  37

  625

  27

  437

  3

  357

  3

  1987

  2,247

  39

  664

  30

  418

  3

  336

  2

  B. Income support (1988–89 only)

  Council tenants

  Private tenants

  Owner occupier

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  1988

  1,850

  33

  540

  25

  655

  4

  C. Housing benefit (from 1983–84 only)

  Council tenants

  Private tenants

  Owner occupier

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  1983

  3,735

  61

  1,015

  41

  2,581

  20

  1984

  3,745

  62

  1,080

  45

  2,540

  19

  1985

  3,710

  62

  1,150

  49

  2,403

  18

  One-parent Families
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what form, and when, the ministerial review of policy on one-parent families will be available; and what relation this review bears to the research carried out by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of lone-parent families has increased from 840,000 in 1979 to just over 1 million in 1986, but their dependence on benefit has increased at an even faster rate. In 1979, 40 per cent. of lone-parent families were dependent on supplementary benefit, but by 1986 the proportion had increased to 60 per cent. No maintenance at all is paid for 77 per cent. of lone parents on income support. In these circumstances the Government must be concerned and examine their own arrangements to see what further can be done to ensure that these fathers meet their responsibilities and to help those lone parents who wish to work to do so.

  We have commissioned an independent study of the motivations and perceptions of lone parents on benefit and the results will he fully and carefully considered.

  Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for each year since 1980 the numbers and proportions of(a) council tenants, (b) private tenants, (c) outright owner occupiers arid (d) owner occupiers with mortgages in receipt of supplementary benefit, income support or housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information available is in the table. Detailed information for owner-occupiers is available only for supplementary benefit. Housing benefit did not begin until 1983–84.

  Council tenants

  Private tenants

  Owner occupier

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  Numbers(000)

  Per cent

  1986

  3,720

  63

  1,180

  52

  2,368

  17

  1987

  3,665

  64

  1,195

  54

  2,336

  16

  1988

  3,100

  55

  925

  43

  1,260

  9

  Notes:

  1. From April 1983 most supplementary benefit recipients, and from April 1988 most income support recipients, received assistance with rent and rates through housing benefit. The figures in (c) above therefore include those in (a) and (b) who qualified for housing benefit.

  2. The information in (a) above is on the basis of receipt of supplementary benefit irrespective of assistance through housing

  443
  benefit. From April 1988 information about the tenure type of Income Support recipients is on the basis of those who also receive housing benefit.

  Immunisation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to link the receipt of child benefit and other family-related benefits to certification of completion of a basic child immunisation programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to him today.

  Social Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions the maximum loan of £1,000 issued from the social fund was to a claimant in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde, (c) Scotland and (d) England and Wales in the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the effects on the net income of families receiving family credit of an increase in child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Child benefit is ignored when assessing family credit in individual cases. Instead, the level of child benefit is taken into account when setting the rates of child credits in family credit. So in April 1989, when child benefit remains unchanged, the new family credit rates included an additional 45p to reflect what would have been the increase in child benefit had it been uprated. This was on top of the increase to restore the value of the child credits and the further 50p added to all the children's rates in the income-related benefits. Increasing child benefit would not therefore have added to the total value of the child credit and child benefit.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to arrange for child benefit to be paid in respect of those young people who are aged over 18 years in secondary education who will be required to pay poll tax from April 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Child benefit will continue in payment for young people under 19 who are in full-time non-advanced education (ie, up to A-level or equivalent standards) regardless of whether or not they are required to pay the community charge.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 July 1989, column 195]: I regret that the reply does not announce the revised annual allocation for Kingston. The information requested is as follows:
  444

  Loans £

  Grants £

  Period

  New Malden

  62,213

  29,006

  29 June 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Kingston

  138,146

  62,251

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the source of the data on real income by decile group referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead on 3 July,Official Report, columns 5–6; and when he expects to make this data available.

  Mr. Moore
  The methods and assumptions used can be found in "Households below Average Income: A Statistical Analysis 1981–85", a copy of which is in the Library. Full details were provided in my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 15 November 1988 at columns 629–30. Details are as follows:

  Improvements in living standards

  Individuals in households

  Great Britain 1979–85

  Decile

  Percentage

  Lowest

  6

  2nd

  5

  3rd

  4

  4th

  4

  5th

  4

  6th

  6

  7th

  6

  8th

  9

  9th

  10

  Highest

  18

  Total

  9

  Notes:

  1. Income is defined as income from all sources less tax and national insurance contributions.

  2. The incomes of all individuals within households have been adjusted for the size and composition of those households.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the money and percentage gains in real income of ech decile group for each year since 1979;

  (2) when he expects to provide a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Birkenhead on changes in real income by decile group to which he gave a holding answer on 30 June.

  Mr. Moore
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: The available information, which is adjusted for household size and composition, is as follows. Percentage changes in real equivalised household incomes by deciles of all individuals are set out in table I. It is not meaningful to produce results by decile of the whole population without allowing for the size of composition of households. For further discussion of this point the hon. Gentleman should see Cm 523 "The Measurement of Living Standards For Households Below Average Income". What the figures in table I mean in terms of changes in real income for a single person household is set out in table II.
  445

  Deciles of Individuals In Households GB

  Table I

  Percentage Changes In Living Standards (Real Equivalised Household Incomes)

  Percentage

  Decile

  1979–81

  1981–83

  1983–85

  Lowest

  -2·2

  0·5

  7·7

  2nd

  -0·4

  1·9

  3·5

  3rd

  -1·3

  1·6

  3·2

  4th

  -1·4

  0·9

  4·0

  5th

  -1·1

  0·4

  5·0

  6th

  -0·7

  0·5

  5·8

  7th

  -0·7

  0·6

  6·3

  8th

  0·7

  0·1

  7·9

  9th

  2·7

  0·5

  7·0

  Highest

  11·5

  -1·3

  7·4

  Total

  2·2

  0·2

  6·2

  Table II

  Money Change In Real Household Incomes For A Single Person Household—1985 Prices By Deciles of the Whole Population £ per week

  Decile

  1979–81

  1981–83

  1983–85

  Lowest

  -0·70

  0·20

  2·60

  2nd

  -0·20

  0·80

  1·60

  3rd

  -0·70

  0·90

  1·70

  4th

  -0·80

  0·60

  2·40

  5th

  -0·70

  0·30

  3·40

  6th

  -0·50

  0·40

  4·40

  7th

  -0·60

  0·50

  5·40

  8th

  0·60

  0·10

  7·60

  9th

  3·00

  0·50

  8·10

  Highest

  18·00

  -2·30

  12·90

  Total

  1·70

  0·20

  5·00

  Notes:

  1. Income is defined as income from all sources less income tax and national insurance contributions.

  2. The incomes of all individuals within households have been adjusted for the size and composition of those households.

  3. The equivalence scales used to adjust for household size and composition use as their basis the income for a single person household. In other words, a single person household has been attributed an equivalence scale of one so that the income of these households is the same both with and without equivalisation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Speech Therapists (Grading)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the grades of speech therapists in Northern Ireland following the regrading under HSS(TC7)3/88 broken down by area board and showing the percentage in each grade before regrading and the percentage after.

  Mr. Needham
  The percentage of speech therapists in each grade at 31 March 1988 broken down by area board is as follows:

  Grade

  Eastern Board

  Northern Board

  Southern Board

  Western Board

  Area Senior Chief

  1·39

  —

  —

  —

  Area Chief I

  —

  2·39

  —

  —

  Area Chief II

  —

  —

  5·21

  4·54

  Chief III

  16·73

  8·79

  15·63

  9·09

  Chief IV

  2·79

  4·54

  5·21

  4·54

  Senior I

  52·07

  58·90

  41·69

  68·18

  Senior II

  22·83

  24·84

  27·04

  13·64

  Diploma Entrant

  2·79

  —

  5·21

  —

  Graduate Entrant

  1·39

  —

  —

  —

  446
  Information on grades following regrading is available only for the Eastern health and social services board as the other three boards are still consulting staff interests and have not yet implemented their proposals. The grading percentages for the Eastern board are as follows:

  Grade

  Per cent.

  E

  1·31

  D

  0·00

  C

  27·62

  B

  60·53

  A

  10·53

  Communications
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial support has been granted to British Telecom, NI, STC and any other agencies, companies or bodies to provide advanced communications and information infrastructure.

  Mr. Viggers
  During the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89 £10,689,473.

  Young Mature Entry Index
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to provide information regarding the young mature entry index for Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: This index cannot be calculated from existing sources hut the possibility of doing so in the future is under review.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will list in respect of Northern Ireland(a) the average rate of unemployment and the European Community average in the last three years and (b) the percentage of industrial employment in total employment and the European Community average.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 7 July 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Annual Average Unemployment1 Rates

  Northern Ireland2

  European Community3

  1986

  17·6

  10·8

  1987

  17·6

  10·4

  1988

  16·4

  10·0

  1. The Northern Ireland and European Community rates are not directly comparable because they are based on different definitions of unemployment.

  2 The Northern Ireland figures are based on the seasonally adjusted unemployment series.

  3 Produced by Eurostat.

  (b) For 1987 (the latest year for which figures for the EC are available) industrial employment is estimated to have constituted 26·4 per cent. of total employment in Northern Ireland and 32·8 per cent. of total employment in the European Community.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Economic Community
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish a White Paper setting out the views of Her Majesty's Government on their future policy with regard to the European Economic Community in the light of the decisions made at the Madrid meeting of the European Council.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 27 April at column 614 to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), and to my statement to the House of 29 June.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding economic and monetary union in the European Economic Community.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on this subject.

  Gwent
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to make an official visit to Caerleon, Gwent.

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

  Rain Forests
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the tropical rain forests in Brazil.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of letters and other representations about the tropical rain forests of Brazil. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has returned from Brazil where he visited the Amazon region and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian Government. It provides for greater co-operation on environmental problems, including the rain forests. We shall now work to agree the details of the projects where we can assist.

  Intensive Farming
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding intensive farming methods.

  The Prime Minister
  Intensive farming methods are among the subjects on which I receive correspondence from the public.

  Low Flying
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the use of low-flying aircraft by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in West Germany.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received on water privatisation.
  448
  The Prime Minister
  I receive many representations about water privatisation, which represents the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving even higher standards of water quality.

  Litter
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding litter in Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a large number of letters from people concerned about litter. They demonstrate wide support for tougher measures to control litter. The Government intend soon to announce a range of proposals for improving legislation in this area.

  Forestry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations on forestry policy.

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

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to meet OXFAM to discuss Britain's aid programme as a percentage of gross national product.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. The Government maintain close contact with non-governmental organisations such as OXFAM. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development met OXFAM as recently as 8 June and discussed a variety of aid issues. United Kingdom aid as a proportion of gross national product stood at 0·32 per cent. in 1988—14 per cent. up on the figure for 1987.

  Japan
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding relations with Japan.

  The Prime Minister
  A few. Japanese investment continues to grow. Over 100 manufacturing firms have now invested or are committed to invest a total of £3 billion to £4 billion in the United Kingdom.

  Chancellor Kohl
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her recent meeting with Chancellor Kohl in Madrid.

  The Prime Minister
  I did not have a separate bilateral meeting with Chancellor Kohl in Madrid. I reported the outcome of the European Council in my statement to the House on 29 June.

  EC (Competition Policy)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding competition policy in the European Economic Community.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have received several recent representations on EC competition policy issues. Most concern the draft EC merger control regulation.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the proposal of the European Commission in relation to a social charter.

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware of the views of both British and European employers on the Commission's proposal. They share the Government's concerns that the current proposal will do nothing to create jobs and reduce unemployment; that it will restrict flexibility in industrial relations; and that there must be clear distinctions drawn between action which is appropriate for the Community, for national Governments and for collective agreements. This last point was made strongly in the agreed conclusions of the European Council in Madrid.

  Better Made in Britain
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the Better Made in Britain campaign.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. I support efforts to stimulate the competitiveness of British goods and identify opportunities to compete in the market place.

  NATO
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received about the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  The Prime Minister
  None. Last month's summit reaffirmed the vital importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in preserving peace and security, as it has done for the last 40 years.

  China
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place at the European Economic Community meeting on recent events in China; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on 29 June.

  Health Service
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the Health Service.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government receive large numbers of representations on the National Health Service from members of the public, the professions and various interest groups. Many share the Government's desire for a Health Service that give patients more choice and rights as consumers, that is more responsible to the needs of local communities, and that builds on its existing successes and efficiency to give better value for money.

  Legislative Programme
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to review Her Majesty's Government's legislative programme in the light of recent election results.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  EC (Financial Services)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding financial services in the European Economic Community.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of such representations about financial services in the Community. As I made clear at the recent European Council in Madrid, the United Kingdom leads in liberalising financial markets and services. We want other member states to liberalise as we have done.

  Scientists (NHS)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the pay scales of(a) scientific civil servants and (b) medical scientists employed in the National Health Service as at 1 March, both gross and net of the effects of contributory pensions.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is as follows. All rates are those that apply outside London.

  Civil service scientists salary scale as at 1 March 1989

  Gross (£)

  Net of pension contribution1 (£)

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  Age 16

  4,254

  4,190

  17

  4,835

  4,762

  18

  5,500

  5,418

  19

  6,261

  6,167

  7,131

  7,024

  8,090

  7,969

  8,574

  8,445

  9,057

  8,921

  Scientific Officer

  8,574

  8,445

  9,057

  8,921

  9,542

  9,399

  10,026

  9,876

  10,509

  10,351

  10,994

  10,829

  Higher Scientific Officer

  10,026

  9,876

  10,509

  10,351

  10,994

  10,829

  11,477

  11,305

  11,961

  11,782

  12,445

  12,258

  12,943

  12,749

  13,460

  13,258

  Senior Scientific Officer

  12,445

  12,258

  12,943

  12,749

  13,460

  13,258

  13,999

  13,789

  14,558

  14,340

  15,141

  14,914

  15,746

  15,510

  16,377

  16,131

  17,032

  16,777

  Above this level Civil Service Scientists are assigned, according to responsibility, to the unified grading structure.

  1 The civil service pension scheme is non contributory but 1·5 per cent. is deducted towards dependants' pensions.

  451

  NHS scientists salary scale as at 1 March 1989

  Gross £

  Net of contributory pension1£

  Probationer lower qualification

  7,378

  6,935

  7,949

  7,472

  8,255

  7,760

  8,548

  8,035

  8,866

  8,334

  9,158

  8,609

  9,452

  8,885

  9,770

  9,184

  Probationer higher qualification

  8,255

  7,760

  8,548

  8,035

  8,866

  8,334

  9,158

  8,609

  9,452

  8,885

  9,770

  9,184

  10,063

  9,459

  10,369

  9,747

  Basic

  8,548

  8,035

  8,866

  8,334

  9,158

  8,609

  9,452

  8,885

  9,770

  9,184

  10,063

  9,459

  10,568

  9,934

  11,073

  10,409

  Senior

  11,778

  11,071

  12,163

  11,433

  12,814

  12,045

  13,440

  12,634

  14,091

  13,246

  14,742

  13,857

  15,394

  14,470

  Principal

  15,180

  14,269

  15,899

  14,945

  16,630

  15,632

  17,347

  16,306

  18,078

  16,993

  18,810

  17,681

  19,527

  18,355

  20,258

  19,043

  20,989

  19,730

  Top grade

  21,136

  19,868

  21,893

  20,579

  23,090

  21,705

  24,193

  22,741

  25,297

  23,779

  Top grade with greater responsibility

  23,914

  22,479

  24,672

  23,192

  25,869

  24,317

  26,971

  25,353

  28,088

  26,403

  1 Six per cent. under NHS superannuation scheme.

  Immunisation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to encourage the pre-school immunisation programme by making starting statutory school or receipt of child benefit dependent upon child immunisation.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no plans to introduce either requirement. Take-up rates for the last year available (1987–88) were 87 per cent. for diphtheria, tetanus and polio, while measles and whooping cough at 452
  76 per cent. and 73 per cent. respectively showed marked improvement on the previous year. We believe that the successful launch of the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine from October 1988, and the proposed introduction of immunisation targets for general practitioners, will enable us to reach the World Health Organisation's objective of 90 per cent. for all these immunisations, without need for compulsion.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) in which ways the United Kingdom now proposes to help to progress the United Nations sponsored talks between the two Cypriot communities following her most recent meeting with President Vassiliou; and whether she will make a statement.

  (2) what further steps she plans to take over the next three months to encourage Turkey, Greece, the United States of America and the European Community to promote a successful outcome of the talks between the two Cypriot communities being held under United Nations sponsorship;

  (3) what recent contacts she has had with President Bush on ways of assisting a successful outcome of the United Nations-sponsored talks between the two Cypriot communities;

  (4) whether she will convene a meeting of the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers to assist the United Nations-sponsored inter-communal talks between the two Cypriot communities before their leaders meet again in New York in September.

  The Prime Minister
  By continuous diplomatic contacts with all the parties concerned, including our fellow guarantor powers, Turkey and Greece, our other EC partners, the United States of America and other allies, the United Kingdom is working to promote agreement on a draft outline settlement of the Cyprus problem before the next meeting in September between the United Nations Secretary General and the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus. I had a further discussion on progress towards this goal with President Vassiliou of Cyprus on 10 July. I have not discussed Cyprus with President Bush for some time, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, agreed on the need for our two Governments to follow developments closely when they met in Washington on 17 April. Meanwhile I do not believe that a meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey would serve any useful purpose at this stage.

  Madrid Talks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the discussions in Madrid with Sir Leon Brittan.

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Leon Brittan did not attend the Madrid European Council.

  Engagements
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.
  453
  Mr. French
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereal Fields
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports he has received of the flattening of circular areas in cereal fields in the south-west and other areas of England respectively: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The flattening of circular areas in cereal fields is a phenomenon known to occur from time to time. It is confined to winter cereal crops and is more prevalent in dry seasons, but we have no arrangements for recording such occurrences and therefore cannot comment on their frequency.

  Bottled Water
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are made to ensure that bottled water offered for sale is tested as being safe and acceptable for public consumption.

  Regions1

  21979–80

  21980–81

  21981–82

  21982–83

  21983–84

  21984–85

  31985–86

  31986–87

  31987–88

  1988–89

  41989–90

  Yorkshire (Yorkshire, North West Northumbria)

  4·69

  5·19

  6·50

  5·45

  6·55

  7·66

  10·02

  11·30

  12·64

  13·66

  16·34

  Midlands (Severn–Trent)

  4·42

  4·37

  4·90

  4·18

  4·36

  4·92

  3·52

  3·82

  3·81

  4·90

  2·85

  East Anglian

  6·95

  7·37

  10·04

  9·06

  11·32

  10·90

  9·92

  14·28

  14·82

  23·66

  24·08

  Southern (including Thames)

  7·02

  5·86

  6·00

  6·26

  9·13

  7·43

  14·61

  15·27

  16·44

  17·92

  19·29

  South West (including Wessex)

  4·19

  4·08

  4·45

  6·60

  8·24

  5·72

  7·07

  6·53

  6·12

  11·94

  13·58

  Total

  536·68

  49·31

  55·17

  58·44

  66·37

  65·01

  62·47

  68·88

  69·23

  72·08

  76·14

  1 Using Water Authority boundaries.

  2 Details of expenditure by local authorities (including maritime district councils) and Internal Drainage Boards not available by region. Overall expenditure in England included in total.

  3 Includes expenditure by maritime district councils by region. Overall expenditure by other local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards included in total.

  4 Estimate.

  5 Details of expenditure by maritime district councils on coast protection works not available.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many employees were employed by the intervention board for agriculture in each of the last four quarters ending 30 June; at which locations they were employed; and, in each case, how many were temporary staff.

  Location

  30 September 1988

  31 December 1988

  31 March 1989

  30 June 1987

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Reading

  731·5

  61

  725·0

  75

  739·5

  54

  746·5

  82·0

  Guildford

  33·0

  6

  34·0

  7

  34·0

  6

  31·0

  9·5

  Newcastle

  0·0

  0

  7·0

  45

  9·0

  60

  15·0

  111·0

  Bristol

  6·0

  0

  6·0

  0

  6·0

  0

  6·0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  5·5

  0

  5·5

  0

  5·5

  0

  5·5

  0

  Cambridge

  4·5

  0

  4·5

  0

  4·5

  0

  4·5

  0

  Harrogate

  4·0

  0

  3·0

  0

  3·0

  0

  3·0

  0

  454
  Mr. Ryder
  Natural mineral waters, sold as such, must meet certain quality standards. The recognition of such waters and checking thereafter is the responsibility of local authorities who enforce the Natural Mineral Waters Regulations 1985. I am considering the need for other bottled waters to be covered by specific regulations. At present, local authorities may request analytical information from producers and take and analyse samples to check they they comply with the standards prescribed in EC directive 80/778/EEC relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption.

  River and Coastal Protection
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure on river and sea walls, coastal protection and defences in each standard region in each year since 1979, including an estimate for the current year.

  Mr. Ryder
  Details of expenditure on flood and coastal defence maintenance works and non-grant-aided capital works are not available. The total expenditure on capital flood and coastal defence works including river and sea walls, in receipt of Government grant in each English region since 1979 is as follows:

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Department's headquarters operation is based in Reading and Guildford. A temporary headquarters outstation has been opened in Newcastle. It also has a small regional network. The permanent and temporary staff in each location at each of the last quarters are as follows:

  United Kingdom Fishing Fleet
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the size of the United Kingdom fleet of fishing vessels in each of the past 10 years.

  United Kingdom fishing fleet 1979–88 by length group1 as at 31 December of each year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19882

  Under 40 ft

  4,878

  4,512

  4,970

  4,485

  5,023

  5,433

  5,868

  6,305

  6,251

  6,260

  40–79·9 ft

  2,092

  2,132

  2,136

  2,073

  1,976

  1,934

  1,852

  1,642

  1,700

  1,731

  80–109·9 ft

  111

  114

  119

  120

  124

  128

  126

  131

  149

  159

  110–139·9 ft

  103

  86

  88

  86

  78

  76

  60

  71

  81

  86

  140 ft+

  58

  51

  38

  33

  29

  13

  14

  17

  23

  28

  Total

  7,242

  6,895

  7,351

  6,797

  7,230

  7,584

  7,920

  8,166

  8,204

  8,264

  1 Changes in the number of under 40 ft vessels are due partly to changes in the definitions used for this sector of the fleet.

  2 Provisional.

  The figures relate to active commercial fishing vessels.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the extent of the required reduction of the United Kingdom's fishing fleet in percentage terms and actual number of vessels under the multi-annual guidance programme over the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The required reductions during each calendar year in terms of tonnage and engine power are as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Gross registered tons

  15,575

  9

  10,895

  7

  8,716

  6

  Engine power (Kw)

  52,353

  6

  46,368

  6

  37,095

  5

  Radioactive Foodstuffs
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current levels of radioactivity in bq/kg or bq/1 for various foodstuffs that apply after a nuclear accident and the changes proposed to those levels in the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  In the event of a nuclear emergency, the current limiting values for radioactivity in all foodstuffs placed on EC markets would be those laid down under Council regulation (EURATOM) 3954/87. This regulation was adopted on 22 December 1987. The levels so far annexed to that regulation are as follows (Bq/kg or Bq/1):

  Dairy Produce

  Other food-stuffs except minor foodstuffs

  Isotopes of strontium, notably Sr-90

  125

  750

  Isotopes of iodine, notably I-131

  500

  2,000

  Alpha-emitting isotopes of plutonium and trans-plutonium elements, notably Pu-239, Am-241

  20

  80

  All other nuclides of half-life greater than 10 days, notably Cs-134, Cs-1387

  1,000

  1,250

  456
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Minor foodstuffs listed in the annex to Commission regulation (EURATOM) 944/89 will be subject to maximum permitted levels 10 times those applicable to "other foodstuffs except minor foodstuffs". Separate levels will in due course be set for liquid foodstuffs, babyfood and animal feedingstuffs. No changes to the present levels are currently under discussion within the EC.

  Aquagard
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the evidence which his veterinary products committee considered prior to giving approval to give a product licence to Nuvan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Extensive data regarding safety, quality and efficacy were provided by the manufacturer of Aquagard in accordance with the requirements of article 5 of directive 81/851/EEC and directive 81/852/EEC governing product licence applications. In addition, since Aquagard is necessarily released into the marine environment the VPC considered all available data relating to the dispersion of dichlorvos and its effects on marine life.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what factors he took into account in granting a product licence for Aquaguard sea lice treatment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he took account of the red list status of the active ingredient dichlorvos when granting a product licence for Aquaguard sea lice treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The factors to be taken into account before granting a product licence are set out in the Medicines Act 1968. The recommendation that I received from the veterinary products committee about Aquaguard took into account the reasons underlying the inclusion of dichlorvos in the Department of the Environment's provisional red list and the need for appropriate safeguards on use and disposal.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has imposed conditions and restrictions on the use of Aquaguard sea lice treatment in granting a product licence; and whether he will place a copy of the product data sheet in the Library.
  457
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I will be arranging to deposit a copy in the Library of the House when available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish the data supplied in support of the product licence application for Aquaguard sea lice treatment by his Department, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Ciba-Geigy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland intends to publish later this year the results of studies into the toxicity of dichlorvos to fish and lobster larvae which were undertaken in concert with my Department and Ciba-Geigy and considered by the VPC along with other data when assessing the product licence application for Aquaguard.

  Beef
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tissues and organs of a cow can be labelled as beef; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  In common with all foodstuffs, butchers' cuts of meat and meat products are subject to the general labelling provisions of the Food Labelling Regulations 1984, which require the name of food products to be sufficiently precise to inform a purchaser of the true nature of the food and to enable the food to be distinguished from products with which it could be confused.

  Under the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984, "meat" is defined for the purposes of those regulations as "flesh including fat, and the skin, rind, gristle and sinew in amounts naturally associated with the flesh used" and may include diaphragm, head meat, heart, kidney, liver, pancreas, tail meat, thymus, and tongue. These tissues and organs may be described as beef, if appropriate, in the statutory minimum meat content declaration.

  Salmon Farming
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he has made provisions for the salmon farming industry to investigate an alternative, less environmentally damaging solution to the sea lice problem than the use of Aquaguard sea lice treatment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he is conducting research into alternative and environmentally benign solutions to control sea lice on salmon farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Marine scientists in my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are in close touch with the Scottish Salmon Growers Association which has commissioned such research from the Institute of Aquaculture at the university of Stirling and from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

  Boxworth Experimental Husbandry Farm
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to publish the results of his study into environmentally friendly agriculture carried out at Boxworth experimental husbandry farm; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.
  458
  Mr. Ryder
  The final report of this study is currently in preparation for publication by HMSO in 1990. Annual reorts are available for the years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and articles on the research have been published.

  Abbatoirs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the recent inspection of abattoirs was completed; when he expects to receive a report on the condition of abattoirs in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  EC Commission veterinary inspectors visited a sample of export-approved premises in Great Britain between 6 and 16 March. In Northern Ireland they visited premises between 3 and 6 July and will visit again between 17 and 20 July.

  The confidential technical reports on the individual premises visited in Great Britain have been received from Brussels and passed to the managements of those premises and the appropriate local authorities. A formal EC Commission report on the visit as a whole is still awaited.

  Fishing Licences
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications for rod and line fishing licences in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland of the establishment of the National Rivers Authority as proposed in the Water Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In England and Wales the requirement to hold appropriate fishing licences will remain under the National Rivers Authority. The procedures with regard to changing fishing licence duties will be slightly modified by the Water Act. The NRA will be required to publish the full scale of any new licence duties that it proposes. Where there are objections the changes may not take effect without the approval of the relevant Minister. We have removed an outmoded provision which prevented new licence duties from taking effect before the start of the next calendar year. We are, however, retaining the principle that not more than one increase in licence duties will be permitted in any 12-month period.

  Fishing licences are not required in Scotland, and this remains unchanged by the Water Act.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  HMSO Publications
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the published price totals of Her Majesty's Stationery Office publications ordered by hon. Members for the latest available period, tabulated per Member.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is not available as individual issues ordered by right hon. and hon. Members are not recorded.

  Council of Europe (Visit of President Gorbachev)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements to make the statement of President Gorbachev to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 6 July available to hon. and right hon. Members.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Copies are available in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total tonnage of merchant shipping which could be requisitioned for supplying reinforcements during a war.

  Mr. Portillo
  At the end of April 1989, 71 British flag dry cargo vessels, totalling 1·8 million deadweight tonnes, were earmarked for carrying transatlantic reinforcement equipment and supplies to Europe. All this tonnage could be requisitioned.

  Traffic Speeds
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average speed of traffic in(a) central London and (b) central Liverpool.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The average speed of traffic in central London is about 11 miles per hour throughout the working day. Comparable information is not available for central Liverpool.

  Road Standards
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department issues to local authorities as to(a) road surface condition and (b) standards of road repair; and how these are enforced.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Local highway authorities determine standards for their roads. Advice on standards for local roads is contained in the local authority associations' code of good practice for highway maintenance. We understand that a revised edition of that code will be published later this year. The standing committee on highway maintenance is planning to monitor the introduction of the code, and the application of certain key standards relating to road surface condition.

  For trunk roads, where local highway authorities act as the Department's agents for maintenance, authorities receive instructions on the standards to be applied. The Department works closely with local highway authorities in developing these standards, many of which are helpful to local authorities in setting standards for their own roads.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to introduce regulations covering the carriage of immersion suits on United Kingdom registered fishing vessels over 10 metres in overall length as part of their life-saving equipment; and if he will make a statement.
  460
  Mr. Portillo
  The carriage of life-saving appliances, including immersion suits, on fishing vessels is under examination by the Department in consultation with the fishing industry as part of the review of the Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report the names, number of fatalities and port of registration of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels which have been lost in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The names of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels which have been lost in the past five years are listed together with fatalities.

  It is not possible in all cases to give the port of registry for vessels for the years 1984–86 as this information is not readily available.

  Name of Vessel

  Port of Registry

  Deaths

  1984

  Navena

  Fleetwood

  —

  Cato

  Brixham

  —

  Big John

  Brixham

  —

  Idavale

  Fraserburgh

  —

  Vertrouwen

  —

  Ocean Herald II

  Buckie

  —

  Cawsand Bay

  Peterhead

  —

  Tribute

  Newry

  —

  Sundari

  Peterhead

  1

  Wavell

  Grimsby

  —

  Sunrise

  —

  Star of Promise

  Peterhead

  —

  Searcher

  —

  Margarita

  Tarbert

  —

  Fertile

  Peterhead

  —

  Sanoy Bay

  Stornoway

  —

  Whyalla

  Inverness

  —

  Dalch Mad

  Llanelli—Wales

  —

  May queen II

  Leith

  —

  Leon Jeannine

  Brixham

  —

  Concord

  Montrose

  —

  Brussina

  —

  Shearwater

  3

  Michelle

  Poole

  2

  Sea Falcon

  —

  Carol Sandra

  4

  North Wind III

  3

  South Stack

  Beaumaris

  3

  Dominator

  —

  Orion

  Stornoway

  —

  Dawn Marie

  —

  Juniper 2

  Poole

  —

  Janie B

  Rye

  —

  Helen R

  Oban

  —

  Rampager

  —

  Sea Gypsy

  Fleetwood

  —

  Heather Valley

  Newry

  —

  Intrepid

  —

  Cordoba

  Montrose

  —

  Channel Avenger

  Weymouth

  —

  Rolyn

  —

  1985

  Pescoso 2

  —

  Ship Burton

  Hull

  —

  Boston Stirling

  Fleetwood

  —

  Meva

  Shoreham

  —

  Golden Strand

  Oban

  —

  Our Catherine

  Scarborough

  —

  Mhari—L

  Hull

  5

  Clarion

  Fraserburgh

  —

  Ocean Dawn

  —

  Thalassa

  Brixham

  —

  Ardgour II

  Kirkcaldy

  —

  Lady Dahra

  —

  Fearnot

  Stornoway

  —

  461

  Name of Vessel

  Port of Registry

  Deaths

  Kelly M

  Scarborough

  —

  Waldrian

  Grimsby

  1

  Ocean Harvest

  Banff

  4

  Sea Hunter

  Fraserburgh

  —

  Aurora

  Peterhead

  —

  Lisa Olesen

  Grimsby

  —

  Kingfisher

  Fleetwood

  —

  Bon Ami

  Banff

  6

  Rolyn

  —

  Newcomen

  —

  Dorothy E

  —

  My Emma

  2

  Provide Us

  —

  Supreme

  Peterhead

  —

  Rachel

  —

  Redemption

  Whitby

  —

  Minerva

  Fraserburgh

  —

  Northern Star

  —

  Valhalla

  Lerwick

  —

  Kate Violet

  —

  Pearl

  —

  Fisherman 1

  —

  Tiercel

  Broad ford

  1

  Colleen

  Bideford

  —

  Lorna Ann

  Barrow

  —

  Lady Kingswood

  —

  Tina Ann

  1

  1986

  Contessa Viv

  Lowestoft

  5

  Pride of Redcar

  Hartlepool

  —

  La Morlaye

  Leith

  —

  Foxglove

  Wick

  —

  Amoria

  Fraserburgh

  —

  Pescado

  Teignmouth

  3

  LBP

  Salcombe

  —

  Avondale

  Leith

  —

  Sonia Jane

  Grimsby

  —

  Connaught

  Fraserburgh

  —

  Happy Hooker

  —

  Danny Boy

  Rye

  —

  Sea Cat

  —

  A Salmon Cobble

  —

  Jake II

  Campbeltown

  —

  My Boy

  Berwick on Tweed

  —

  End of the World

  —

  Sir Percival

  Weymouth

  —

  Rosnuala

  Campbeltown

  —

  1987

  Loch Kildovan

  Peterhead

  —

  Freemantle

  Peterhead

  —

  Guide Onwards

  Inverness

  —

  Constant Star

  Peterhead

  —

  Stella Marie

  Peterhead

  —

  Dayspring

  Scarborough

  —

  Anmara

  Hull

  3

  Grateful

  Fowey

  —

  Angela

  Peterhead

  1

  Onward Fisher

  Fleetwood

  —

  Galilean

  Penzance

  —

  KMB

  Dartmouth

  —

  Ptarmigan

  Buckie

  —

  Girl Maureen

  Portsmouth

  —

  1988

  Laura Jane

  Padstow

  2

  Gillian Claire

  Penzance

  3

  Southern Enterprise

  Southampton

  3

  Ocean Gain

  Stornoway

  —

  Albert II

  Broadford

  2

  Frey I

  Campbeltown

  —

  Couldn't Help It

  Cowes I.O.W.

  —

  Emma Jane

  Poole

  —

  Budding Rose

  Peterhead

  —

  Choice

  Buckie

  —

  Inspire

  Cardigan

  3

  Guldborg

  Hull

  —

  462

  Name of Vessel

  Port of Registry

  Deaths

  Our Tracey Jane

  Hartlepool

  —

  Jeremy Gordon

  Scarborough

  2

  Tarka

  Ramsgate

  1

  Mayford

  Lowestoft

  2

  Utopia

  Fraserburgh

  —

  Kingfisher

  Stornoway

  —

  Silver Crest

  Lowestoft

  —

  Internos

  Campbeltown

  —

  Fortitude

  Banff

  —

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to increase the penalty for abuse of the orange badge scheme for severely disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Misuse of an orange badge already carries a maximum fine of £400. The level of penalty is kept under review. Badges can be withdrawn by local authorities in cases of persistent misuse.

  We must make it easier for the police and traffic wardens to spot abuse of the scheme. We have proposed that the orange badge should be redesigned in the form of a more robust personal passport-type of document. There would be space for a photograph of the holder. We shall be looking at ways in which the badge could be displayed which would avoid fixing it permanently to the windscreen, thereby making it difficult to remove. This approach has been widely welcomed by people with disabilities and their representative organisations and by other groups.

  Driving Tests (Durham)
  Mr Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average waiting time for a driving test in Durham.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Twelve weeks.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what constraints his Department sets on financial investment in new infrastructure by British Rail, with particular reference to the required rate of return from investment: if these constraints apply to the British Rail proposals to build a Channel tunnel rail link through Kent and south east London; what is the present projected cost of the Channel tunnel rail link project; at what rate of return the line will operate under the present plans; and at what projected date the CTRL line is expected to make a return on the investment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government's required rate of return for commercial public sector programme is 8 per cent. If the Channel tunnel rail link were to be financed by British Rail, it would be appraised using a discount rate reflecting this rate of return. British Rail is currently discussing its proposals with the private sector with a view to securing private investment in the scheme.

  The cost of the high-speed link is estimated at about £1·7 billion. Appraisal of the scheme to estimate a rate of return is not yet complete.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons in London have been reported for offences of(a) having no current excise licence, (b) no insurance, (c) no Ministry of Transport certificate, (d) having vehicle in unroadworthy condition and (e) driving whilst disqualified since 16 May.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that the information sought could not be assembled except at disproportionate cost.

  Road-side Checks (Tax Discs)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many(a) police officers and (b) Department of Transport officials have been engaged in the campaign to identify motorists without tax discs announced for Greater London on 3 May;

  (2) how many motorists have so far been stopped in the road-side checks announced on 3 May for Greater London;

  (3) what has been the cost to public funds so far of the campaign in London to identify tax disc dodgers announced by his Department on 3 May;

  (4) what results have been obtained so far in the campaign against motor tax dodgers in London announced on 3 May.

  Total

  Children Killed

  Pedestrians

  Child Pedestrians

  Rear seat strapped

  Rear seat unstrapped/unknown

  Road deaths in Merseyside: 1983–87

  1983

  95

  20

  56

  16

  0

  8

  1984

  128

  25

  80

  21

  0

  4

  1985

  109

  11

  62

  8

  0

  6

  1986

  102

  10

  59

  9

  1

  5

  1987

  105

  9

  61

  7

  0

  3

  Road deaths in St. Helens: 1983–87

  1983

  14

  4

  7

  2

  0

  1

  1984

  15

  1

  8

  0

  0

  1

  1985

  12

  0

  4

  0

  0

  2

  1986

  12

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  1987

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The use of seat belts saves lives. We should continue to take every opportunity to get that message across.

  In April this year we published a major package of measures aimed at improving pedestrian safety, which we intend to implement as quickly as possible.

EMPLOYMENT

  Benefit Disqualifications
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what are the results of his monitoring of the disqualification periods imposed on people deemed to have left work without good cause, since the increase in maximum disqualification period from 13 to 26 weeks;

  (2) in how many cases, where a claimant for unemployment benefit has been disqualified on the ground of leaving employment without good cause, the disqualification period has been 26 weeks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply. An analysis of a sample of adjudication officers' decisions
  464
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As part of their continuing enforcement duties, the Department's officials spent 1,600 man hours during the recent campaign in London in detecting vehicle excise evaders. The estimated manpower cost was £7,000. I understand that the Metropolitan and City police devoted a similar effort to the task.

  Only vehicles whose tax discs were not clearly visible or appeared to be out of date were stopped. Of these, 3,800 are being investigated with a view to prosecution where an excise offence has been committed. The Department's publicity costs totalled £145,000.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were killed on roads in(a) Merseyside and (b) St. Helens for each of the last five years; how many of those killed were children or pedestrians or both; how many were sitting in the rear seats of motor vehicles and unstrapped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The following table show the number of deaths in road accidents for each of the last five years for which complete information is available, broken down as requested, for (a) Merseyside and (b) St. Helens.

  taken during the first three months of this year indicates that disqualification for unemployment benefit in circumstances generally known as "voluntary unemployment" was imposed for the full 26-week period in' less than two-thirds of the cases. The sample included those disqualified for leaving employment without just cause. The full information obtained from the monitoring exercises is currently being analysed and the results will be published shortly.

  Children (Employment)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to bring into force the Employment of Children Act 1973.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973. All local authorities (except Isles of Scilly) have byelaws which regulate the hours and conditions of children's employment. The

  465
  majority of byelaws follow departmental guidance of 1976 which is based on the proposed content of regulations under the 1973 Act.

  Strikes
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the 12 months ending March 1989, 2,858,000 working days were lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes. This figure is about one quarter of the average for the previous 10 years.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to deal with the problem of low pay.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on Tuesday 16 May at column 164.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 26,510,000, the highest level on record. This represents an increase of 2,948,000 or 12·5 per cent. since March 1983. The rising trend has now continued for more than five years. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces and participants on work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for 12 months or more in the City of Durham constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is available from the Library. In April 1989, the latest available date, the number of unemployed claimants in the City of Durham parliamentary constituency who had been unemployed for over 12 months was 1,109.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish an analysis of known job vacancies in Durham by skill category required.

  Mr. Lee
  There is no analysis available by skill category. However, vacancies are analysed by occupation and industry.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to monitor the accident rates for trainees on the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Yes. Accident statistics will be collected and monitored on the employment training scheme along lines already operating in YTS.

  Tourism
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has further to encourage the growth of tourism and tourist-related jobs in East Anglia currently and after 1992.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on 6 July at column 287 to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan). The changes to the operation of both the British Tourist Authority (BTA) and the English tourist board (ETB) set out in that statement are intended to result in even more effective support by these boards and by the East Anglia tourist board for the growth of tourism in East Anglia now and after 1992.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received on the proposals of section 4 grants for tourism development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations expressing a variety of views about the section 4 scheme. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 6 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) concerning the future of the scheme.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had recently from operators of the touring caravan sites section of the tourist industry; and what advice his Department will he giving them further to develop their job-creating potential.

  Mr. Lee
  The caravan sector is an important part of the tourism industry, providing a large number of jobs, both in caravan manufacture, and in servicing caravan sites. The quality of both has improved substantially in recent years, and I am keen to see the caravan industry continue to develop its potential. I welcome the industry's initiative in marketing itself through a national promotional campaign, in introducing a grading scheme for parks, and in bringing the industry's potential to the notice of planning officials to encourage positive attitudes towards planning applications. I also welcome the substantial capital investment that is currently taking place in this sector.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list information available to him on the top 10 national visitor-paying tourist attractions by(a) number of visitors, (b) revenue received and (c) where appropriate, profit made during 1988, and the top 10 in the East Midlands tourist board area according to the same criteria.

  Mr. Lee
  The financial information requested could be made available only at disproportionate cost. The national tourist boards' annual surveys of numbers of visits to paying attractions give the following figures for Britain and for the East Midlands tourist board area:

  Number of visits

  Thousands

  Britain

  Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,705

  Alton Towers, Staffordshire

  2,510

  467

  Number of visits

  Thousands

  Tower of London

  2,182

  Blackpool Tower

  1,478

  Natural History Museum

  1,367

  London Zoo

  1,326

  Kew Gardens

  1,181

  Chessington World of Adventures

  1,151

  Magnum Leisure Centre, Irvine

  1,080

  Thorpe Park, Surrey

  1,028

  East Midlands

  The American Adventure

  660

  Twycross Zoo

  470

  Sundown Pets Garden, Rampton

  230

  Heights of Abraham, Matlock

  206

  Riber Castle Wildlife Centre

  170

  Lincoln Castle

  165

  Battlefield of Bosworth

  150

  National Tramway Museum

  150

  Belvoir Castle, Grantham

  117

  Poole's Cavern, Buxton

  100

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of tourism in Leicestershire at current prices in each of the years from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information for Leicestershire is shown in table 1 and relates to expenditure by overseas visitors to the United Kingdom who made a trip of at least one night to Leicestershire. Information about spending by domestic residents is available only for the whole of the East Midlands tourist board region, and is shown in table 2 together with the equivalent information for overseas visitors. Figures for tourist expenditure by United Kingdom residents on day trips to Leicestershire or the east midlands are not available.

  Table 1

  Estimated spending in Leicestershire by overseas residents1

  £ million

  1979

  9

  1980

  12

  1981

  11

  1982

  13

  1983

  14

  1984

  17

  1985

  20

  1986

  17

  1987

  17

  1988

  25

  1 Source: International Passenger Survey.

  Table 2

  Estimated spending in east midlands3

  £ million

  By overseas residents1

  By British residents2

  Total

  1979

  37

  132

  169

  1980

  43

  154

  197

  1981

  21

  170

  191

  1982

  53

  175

  228

  1983

  62

  196

  258

  1984

  79

  4230

  309

  1985

  85

  234

  319

  1986

  80

  305

  385

  1987

  89

  290

  379

  1988

  94

  365

  459

  1 Source: International Passenger Survey.

  2 Source: British Tourist Authority.

  468

  3 East Midlands Regional Tourist Board comprising: Leicestershire together with Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire.

  4 From 1984 an improved method of estimating expenditure was introduced for domestic spending. Figures for 1984 and later years are, therefore not, strictly comparable with those for earlier years.

  EC Blue Flag Award
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department has taken to congratulate those responsible and to promote the winners of this year's European Community blue flag award for beaches and bathing waters.

  Mr. Lee
  Today I took part in flag-raising ceremonies at two of the 1989 award-winning beaches, namely Bournemouth and Poole, as part of national Blue Flag Day. I would like to congratulate this year's 22 winners, including Lowestoft South beach in my hon. Friend's constituency, and the Tidy Britain Group, the Water Authorities Association, and the English Tourist Board, who support the awards in this country.

  Employment Training
  Mrs. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount to date expended on the employment training scheme; and what is the amount of money expended per trainee.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Some £566 million had been spent on employment training up to the end of May 1989. The estimated cost per trainee is £2,300.

ENERGY

  Hinkley Point C Inquiry
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 26 June,Official Report, column 350, on the extent of the cost to public funds of the Hinkley Point C inquiry, if he will state (a) the best estimate given to him to date by the Central Electricity Generating Board of the costs of the inquiry borne or to be borne by it and (b) his assessment of the costs so far incurred by local authorities.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The costs incurred by the CEGB are a matter for them. I have asked the chairman of the board to write to my hon. Friend.

  Harwell
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the facilities currently subject to either Euratom or the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards at Harwell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  All civil nuclear material at Harwell is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/IAEA/Euratom safeguards agreement. The IAEA has not chosen to designate facilities at Harwell for inspection.

  Energy Technology Support Unit
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current and past contribution of the energy technology support unit to the United Kingdom energy programme.
  469
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Since 1974, the energy technology support unit has provided, and continues to provide, project management services for the Department's renewables and energy efficiency research, development, and demonstration programmes. Through the chief scientist's group, it also provides technical and analytical support for the Department.

  Sizewell C
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has had recently on the case for a public inquiry into the Central Electricity Generating Board proposal to build Sizewell C in Suffolk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has directed the CEGB to advertise its application for his consent to construct a second PWR nuclear power station at Sizewell and has allowed a period up to 30 September in which objections can be made to him.

  Until he has seen all such objections and has received the views of the relevant local planning authorities, it is too early to say whether a public inquiry will be necessary.

  To date, my Department has registered some 700 objections to the application.

  New Headquarters (Cost)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost per occupant of the construction and equipment of his Department's new headquarters offices.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department's headquarters is being fitted out to normal Government standards, including those covering fire and security, set by the Property Services Agency and the Treasury. The cost is borne on the PSA's vote. My Department will be paying a rent to the PSA reflecting the full opportunity cost of the building.

  Wylfa
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will extend the time for submitting objections and making representations to the inquiry into the Central Electricity Generating Board's application for a pressurised water reactor at Wylfa to 31 October 1989.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. I believe that the period of three months that my right hon. Friend has allowed for objections is ample time for anyone wishing to object to the CEGB's application to do so.

  The requirements for publicity to be given to power station applications are set out in the Electricity (Publication of Applications) Regulations 1957. These regulations state that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must give a period of not less than 21 days in which objections can be made to him. The period of three months that my right hon. Friend has allowed is simply for objections to be registered pursuant to section 34 of the Electricity Act of 1957. If he calls for an inquiry to be held, all registered objectors will be sent details of the inquiry including the procedures to be followed if the objector wishes to give evidence.

HEALTH

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by district health authority(a) the current nursing staff establishment, (b) the number in post at the latest available date and (c) the number who have left the National Health Service in the preceding year.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 4 July at column 152, regarding the number of nursing staff in post.

  We do not collect information on nursing staff establishments centrally. We expect to have some information on the number leaving the NHS later this year.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether decisions have been made on proposals made by health authorities under the pilot scheme for flexible pay supplements for nursing and midwifery staff in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes. Regional health authorities are being notified today of the decisions which have been taken on their bids and of their additional financial allocations. Copies of the notifications will be placed in the Library.

  District health authorities were invited to bid, through their region, against the sum—not exceeding £5 million—which the Government have made available in 1989–90 for a pilot scheme on flexible pay supplements for nursing and midwifery staff. I received a very positive response. Many authorities welcomed the opportunity to use this scheme to meet particular recruitment and retention difficulties for such staff. In total, I received 157 bids from 10 regions, covering 7,792 posts.

  Decisions on the bids were taken by Ministers, following detailed analysis by a small panel of departmental and NHS officials. The main criteria used in assessing the bids were vacancy rates; turnover rates; degree of use of agency/bank staff and of overtime; the impact of these factors on service delivery; non-pay initiatives taken by authorities; and local labour market issues.

  Altogether, 116 bids (covering 5,804 posts) were accepted as they stood; 19 bids (1,235 posts) were accepted but reduced in coverage to 963 posts; 9 bids (281 posts) accepted but extended in coverage to 397 posts; and 13 bids (472 posts) were rejected.

  The supplements which cover all grades in the clinical structure and which range from £200 to £1,000, are payable from 1 July 1989.

  Our evidence to the nurses' pay review body on the future of the scheme will take account of our experience of this first round of bids and of the close monitoring of the effects of the supplements that we are undertaking.

  A summary of the bids approved, and their cost, is set out in the table.

  Region

  Number of posts covered

  Total cost (including on-costs)

  £

  Yorkshire

  190

  146,926

  Trent

  333

  267,374

  East Anglia

  998

  651,077

  471

  Region

  Number of posts covered

  Total cost (including on-costs)

  £

  North West Thames

  1,621

  1,091,058

  North East Thames

  62

  38,530

  South East Thames

  1,219

  959,239

  South West Thames

  2,067

  1,077,027

  Oxford

  272

  213,873

  West Midlands

  324

  188,994

  North Western

  78

  64,935

  TOTAL

  7,164

  4,699,033

  Mersey Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases were on the inpatient waiting list in the Mersey regional health authority at the latest available date.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 30 September 1988, there were 32,121 such cases.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services have been contracted out within the Mersey regional health authority to date; and what savings have been made or are expected from such contracting-out.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally in the form requested. As a result of the Government's 1983 competitive tendering initiative for domestic, catering and laundry services annual savings of almost £6 million have been generated in the Mersey region with around £1½ million resulting from contracts awarded to outside contractors. This tendering process is being extended within the region, to varying degrees, to portering services, grounds and gardens, building, engineering and equipment maintenance, energy management, waste disposal and computer information services, with outside contractors winning some contracts or otherwise stimulating improvements in in-house services. For more detailed information my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the regional health authority.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many capital schemes of over £1 million(a) have been completed and (b) are under construction in the National Health Service Mersey region since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally shows that 22 schemes over £1 million have been completed in the National Health Service Mersey region since 1 January 1979, for a total expenditure, including fees and equipment of approximately £140 million, and one is under construction.

  Perinatal1 and neonatal2 mortality rates, European Economic Community countries 1982–88

  Country

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Perinatal

  Belgium

  12·6

  12·2

  11·3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Denmark

  8·7

  9·0

  8·4

  8·1

  8·4

  n/a

  n/a

  France

  12·1

  11·4

  11·1

  10·7

  10·4

  n/a

  n/a

  Greece

  16·8

  16·5

  16·6

  15·7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ireland

  13·5

  13·7

  13·6

  12·3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Italy

  16·0

  15·2

  314· 5

  313·2

  312·8

  n/a

  n/a

  Luxembourg

  12·0

  10·7

  8·8

  7·8

  7·2

  n/a

  n/a

  Netherlands

  10·0

  10·1

  10·0

  9·8

  9·7

  n/a

  n/a

  Portugal

  23·8

  21·4

  21·0

  21·6

  19·9

  n/a

  n/a

  Spain

  12·9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  472
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage bed occupancy was in(a) the Mersey regional health authority and (b) England in the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table. The health services information steering group (chaired by Mrs. E. Korner) recommended in its first report that bed occupancy statistics no longer be used as an indicator of efficient bed use.

  Average daily available beds and occupied beds, 1987–88

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Percentage occupancy

  England

  297,342

  240,0001

  81

  Mersey regional health authority

  16,653

  13,820

  83

  1 Estimate

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of health expenditure in the Mersey region, expressed per household in(a) 1978–79 and (b) the latest available year in (i) cash terms and (ii) terms adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Expenditure by household for individual regional health authorities is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may therefore wish to write to the chairman of Mersey regional health authority who may be able to provide information.

  My hon. Friend may however find the following centrally available information of help. Per capita expenditure by Mersey regional health authority on hospital and community health services in 1978–79 = £91·34 million.

  The comparable figure for 1987–88 (latest year available) = £229·77 million in cash terms and (ii) £112·47 million expressed by 1978–79 values (a real terms increase of 23 per cent.).

  These figures exclude expenditure on the family practitioner services in the Mersey region.

  Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the neonatal and perinatal mortality rates are for each of the last five years for which figures are available in the United Kingdom; and what are the comparable figures for the other individual member states of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Freeman
  The tables give the latest available data from the Statistical Office of the European Community's "Eurostat" volume 1988 and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' "Population Trends No. 56."
  473

  Country

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  West Germany

  9·6

  9·3

  8·6

  7·9

  7·6

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  11·4

  10·5

  10·2

  9·9

  9·6

  9·0

  n/a

  Neonatal

  Belgium

  6·7

  6·5

  5·9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Denmark

  4·8

  4·6

  4·7

  4·7

  5·1

  n/a

  n/a

  France

  5·3

  5·0

  4·7

  4·6

  4·3

  n/a

  n/a

  Greece

  11·5

  10·9

  10·8

  10·6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ireland

  6·6

  6·1

  6·0

  5·3

  4·8

  n/a

  n/a

  Italy

  10·3

  9·6

  39·1

  38·1

  37·7

  n/a

  n/a

  Luxembourg

  6·3

  6·5

  6·0

  2·9

  4·2

  n/a

  n/a

  Netherlands

  5·1

  5·3

  5·1

  5·0

  4·8

  n/a

  n/a

  Portugal

  13·8

  11·5

  11·3

  12·2

  10·8

  n/a

  n/a

  Spain

  7·9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Germany

  6·3

  5·9

  5·5

  5·0

  4·8

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  6·4

  5·9

  5·7

  5·4

  5·3

  5·0

  4·9

  1 Deaths in the first week of life and stillbirths per thousand live and stillbirths.

  2 Deaths in the first 28 days of life (27 completed days) per thousand live births.

  3 Provisional data.

  Nursing Teachers (Salaries)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to inform nursing teachers of the salary to be awarded to the grades they have recently been allotted; and whether he will publish the grades and salaries attached in the Official Report.

  Mr. Mellor
  The review body has submitted its report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Decisions on the implementation of the review body's recommendations will be taken in the normal way.

  Private Health Screening Clinics
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the code of practice recently published by the Independent Hospitals Association for the conduct of private health screening clinics; and what assessment has been made of the medical qualifications required of the staff.

  Mr. Mellor
  We welcome the Independent Hospitals Association's initiative to improve the quality of services in the private sector. We are considering the association's proposals in the light of the White Paper "Working for Patients" and our objectives for improved levels of care and wider patient choice.

  Water Contamination (North Cornwall)
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the South West regional health authority in conjunction with the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority are continuing to interview patients in the Camelford area of north Cornwall; and if he will make a statement on the progress of these investigations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority has arranged for a consultant to see those people from the Camelford area who wish to have a medical check following exposure to the water contaminated with aluminium sulphate. These medical checks are carried out every Saturday morning at the East Cornwall hospital. The necessary support facilities are available should the consultant wish to refer anyone for further medical examination.

  These sessions will continue for as long as is needed. They are additional to the normal health service provision,
  474
  available at the time of the pollution incident and since, whereby anyone can consult a general practitioner for both diagnosis and treatment and can be referred to a hospital consultant by the general practitioner.

  Medical Services (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the current average waiting times for women in Durham district health authority waiting for results of cervical smear.

  Mr. Mellor
  All results are made available to the patient's GP within two weeks.

  Anthony Porter
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Anthony Porter after an incident at North Tees hospital in December 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am considering my hon. Friend's letter of 23 June on this subject, to which a reply will be sent shortly.

  Hospital Facilities
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report for each of the past five years, those hospital facilities in England that fell short of acceptable standards referred to in paragraph 16 of the first annual report of Her Majesty's inspector of pollution.

  Mr. Freeman
  I assume that the inquiry relates to the paragraph 16 on page 26 of the report which refers to the inspections of hospitals under the Medicines (Administration of Radioactive Substances) Regulations.

  Following these inspections, Her Majesty's inspector of pollution reports to the Department on various requirements for certification under these regulations. These reports may include general comments about the facilities available to clinicians administering radioactive substances. If the Department feels that there is cause for concern, the matter is pursued with the health authority. Should the Department consider, following investigation, that the facilities no longer reach an acceptable standard,

  475
  certificate(s) of the clinician(s) using those facilities would be suspended or revoked. No certificates have been so suspended or revoked during the last five years.

  Scientists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage contribution from employers to the pension scheme of scientists in medicine employed by the National Health Service over the last five years.
  476
  Mr. Mellor
  Over the last five years, the contribution from NHS employers to the NHS superannuation scheme for all NHS employees was 7·5 per cent. of superannuable pay up to and including 31 March 1989 and 4 per cent. from 1 April 1989.

  Rotherham Hospital
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received the recent letter from the Rotherham Hospital Medical Staff committee expressing grave concern about the maintenance of services; and if additional resources will be provided for the Rotherham health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has received a letter from the Rotherham Hospital Medical Staff committee. Allocation of resources to individual health authorities is a matter for the relevant regional health authority; in Rotherham's case, this is Trent.

  Immunisation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend basic child immunisation for the 0 to 5 years age group.

  Mr. Freeman
  The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation, which advises the health departments on all aspects of immunisation, has set up a group to consider and make recommendations on the present

  Number of cases of principal types of food poisoning detected or reported January-June 1989

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Clostridium Botulinum

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  Salmonella Enteritidis

  733

  826

  742

  671

  779

  n.a.

  Salmonella Typhimurium

  318

  254

  227

  200

  329

  n.a.

  Other Salmonellas

  367

  235

  244

  235

  256

  n.a.

  Clostridium Perfringens

  16

  46

  228

  8

  2

  44

  Staphylococcus Aureus

  4

  7

  10

  —

  50

  —

  Bacillus SP

  —

  3

  5

  3

  3

  —

  n.a. = Not yet available.

  Number of laboratory reports for Campylobacter infection, four-weekly to 16 June 1989

  Weeks

  Number

  01–04

  1,480

  05–08

  1,915

  09–12

  1,944

  13–16

  1,625

  17–20

  2,225

  21–24

  4,175

  Source: PHLS

  Note: All figures are provisional

ENVIRONMENT

  Sewage Outfall, Royal Portbury Dock
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct Wessex Water to extend the proposed 900 m sewage outfall being built adjacent to Royal Portbury dock to the full 2 km length; and if he will make a statement on what length outfall is appropriate in coastal waters such as the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Howard
  Before granting a discharge consent for any new sea outfall scheme, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution must be satisfied that the scheme will enable bathing waters in the vicinity to meet the standards of the EEC bathing water directive. The length of the outfall required to achieve this objective will depend on local 478
  childhood immunisation schedule and on future developments. We shall consider the JCVI's views when they are available.

  Alcohol Problems
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to recognise new centres for the management of alcohol problems as designated places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is at present considering the designation of one new centre for the management of alcohol problems in Southampton.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) botulism, (b) salmonella enteridais, (c) salmonella typhimurium and (d) other types of food poisoning had been detected or reported for each month since Janaury.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 3 July 1989]: The information requested is given in the tables. Laboratory reports of campylobacter infections are collated weekly, and four-weekly totals to 16 June are given, but it is not known how many of these infections are food-borne.

  factors such as tides, currents, depth of water and prevailing winds. The average length of long sea outfalls is around 2 km. However, local conditions may mean that they can be longer or shorter than this. Relevant studies of the hydrographical conditions near the Royal Portbury dock indicated that a 900 m outfall would be the most appropriate length. Accordingly, a discharge consent for such an outfall was granted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in July 1987.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has undertaken into air conditioning of office buildings.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Building Research Establishment has carried out research into the design and performance of air conditioning of office buildings over a number of years. Working with the Property Services Agency and the industry, the establishment has provided a major contribution to industry standards, such as the design guides, application manuals and building energy codes of the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers. The topics covered have included air infiltration, calculation of summertime overheating, plant capacity, thermal comfort conditions and operating costs. More recently, work has been focused on the "sick building syndrome", the emerging problems of CFCs, and means of improving
  479
  energy efficiency. A copy of the published research programme of the Building Research Establishment is in the Library of the House.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the in the Official Report the 30 local authorities in England with the largest amounts of rent arrears, with the amounts outstanding and the number of people owing in each case.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information, for the end of March 1988, is listed as follows:

  Rent arrears1 £000s

  Number of current and former tenants in arrears2

  1. Southwark

  19,019

  ֵ

  2. Lambeth

  12,554

  ֵ

  3. Liverpool

  11,220

  ֵ

  4. Islington

  9,764

  ֵ

  5. Hackney

  8,418

  ֵ

  6. Brent

  38,100

  20,140

  7. Manchester

  8,085

  55,368

  8. Sheffield

  5,449

  ֵ

  9. Birmingham

  5,263

  46,950

  10. Greenwich

  4,785

  ֵ

  11. Lewisham

  4,700

  ֵ

  12. Camden

  4,660

  25,230

  13. Haringey

  4,119

  ֵ

  14. Walsall

  4,016

  21,946

  15. Newham

  3,626

  ֵ

  16. Wolverhampton

  3,329

  ֵ

  17. Waltham Forest

  3,141

  ֵ

  18. Wandsworth

  2,409

  16,081

  19. Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,321

  26,774

  20. Knowsley

  2,282

  16,898

  21. Tower Hamlets

  2,218

  23,068

  22. Ealing

  2,196

  11,727

  23. Leicester

  2,188

  21,444

  24. Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,153

  16,511

  25. Leeds

  2,136

  32,721

  26. Sandwell

  2,101

  21,985

  27. Bradford

  2,002

  21,588

  28. Salford

  1,867

  18,616

  29. Westminster

  1,779

  12,577

  30. Kirklees

  1,627

  14,344

  1 Cumulative rent arrears are reported to the Department on local authorities' Housing Subsidy Claim forms, but these do not give the number of tenants in arrears.

  2 Local authority tenants owing rent, rates and other charges as reported to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and published in "Housing Rents Statistics at April 1988" are given where available (ֵ indicates not available).

  3 Department of the Environment estimate of rent arrears based on reported total tenants' arrears (including rates etc.) of £16·7 million.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals for a code of conduct for the offer by local authorities of council housing to ex-service personnel.

  Mr. Trippier
  Advice to local authorities is already available in my Department's circular 54/75, which requests that local authorities consider sympathetically applications from men and women leaving Her Majesty's forces.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he or Ministers or officials of his Department have recently met the head of the United Nations environment programme's industry and environment office to discuss matters pertinent to the United Kingdom or European Community environmental protection.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government fully support the work of the United Nations environment programme's industry and environment office. Officials in the Department of the Environment are in regular contact with the industry and environment office and have recently been discussing the creation of an international network to promote the exchange of information on clean technology.

  Environment and Development
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives he has taken to implement recommendations made by the Brundtland committee on world environment and development.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom is one of a very small number of countries to have published a formal response to the report of the world commission on environment and development. The London "Saving the Ozone Layer" conference in March, attended by 123 countries, gave strong support to the report's concept of sustainable development. In September the United Kingdom is to host a workshop on awareness raising and public participation as part of the preparations for next year's ministerial conference in Bergen which will examine the implementation of the report in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Her Majesty's Government policy towards proposals by the United Nations to hold a conference on environment and development in 1992.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government fully support the proposal for a United Nations conference on environment and development in 1992. The United Kingdom will be taking an active part in the preparations and will aim to ensure that the conference reaches agreement on the actions needed to tackle global environmental problems.

  Planning Applications (Harrogate)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of appeals carried out into planning applications in the Harrogate borough council area during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows.

  Year

  Planning appeals

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Withdrawn

  1986–87

  92

  64

  21

  11

  1987–88

  104

  87

  30

  17

  1988–89

  121

  96

  28

  15

  Ivory
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what powers he has imposed a unilateral ban on ivory imports.
  481
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The ban on ivory imports is based on article 10 1(b) of EC regulation 3626/82. We consider that the decline in African elephant populations is so serious that the conditions set out in that article for the issue of import permits cannot be met.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the unilateral ban on ivory imports for the terms of the CITES convention which regulates and controls the legitimate trade in ivory.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Article XIV of the convention indicates that the provisions of the convention shall not affect the right of parties to adopt stricter domestic measures. The action that we have taken is entirely compatible with the provisions of the convention.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were housed from the waiting list and by which category in each local authority in England and Wales in 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local authorities report the number of dwellings let on secure tenancies to households under normal waiting list allocation procedures on their annual housing investment programme returns. The figures for 1987–88 appear in column E9c of the "198 HIP1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library. Information on categories is not held centrally.

  For corresponding information about Welsh authorities I refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Housing (Voluntary Agencies)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the continuation of funding to voluntary agencies in the housing field under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment hopes to make an announcement soon.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the funding of voluntary organisations by the statutory sector in the field of housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  Our policy is that voluntary organisations in the shape of housing associations have a major role to play in the future, as providers of housing, and should be supported by Government and local authorities, with important contributions from private funding.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the role that voluntary housing organisations should play in relation to statutory housing services.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housing associations should in future be the major providers of social rented housing, supported by public and private funds, and co-operating fully with local housing authorities.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the service provided by 482
  those organisations in receipt of funding under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 and under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985; and what are his concerns in each case with which he is not satisfied.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been reviewing the section 73 grant regime; we hope to announce conclusions soon. A review of section 16 grants in relation to housing management training is now under way and we shall be consulting interested bodies.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the establishments that have applied for consent to discharge sewage in excess of the levels set in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 following the privatisation of water authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  Consents for discharges from sewage treatment works by water authorities are issued by the Secretary of State under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The Act itself does not set permissible levels of discharge. Lists of sewage treatment works for which applications have been made for time-limited discharge consents, pending completion of capital improvement schemes, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Harwell Incinerator (Closure)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the closure of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Harwell laboratory incinerator has posed any disposal problems for slightly radioactive organic solvents used in scintillation counting.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The closure of the Harwell incinerator has not posed any disposal problems. Slightly radioactive solvents are now disposed of in other incinerators authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  Environmental Monitoring
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution intends to publish reports on the results obtained from monitoring private water supplies for radioactivity;

  (2) when he expects Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to publish its first annual report on the national programme of environmental monitoring in the vicinity of selected premises controlled under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The inspectorate intends to publish the reports by the end of this year.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all sites of special scientific interest presently renotified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England and Wales on a county by county basis.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Nature Conservancy Council is currently preparing an up-to-date list of SSSIs in England and Wales. I will write to the hon. Member
  483
  with this information as soon as it is available, and will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sizewell C
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had recently on the case for a public inquiry into the Central Electricity Generating Board proposal to build Sizewell C in Suffolk; and whether he now intends to order such an inquiry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received one letter from a member of the public which was forwarded to the Department of Energy for a reply. As far as a public inquiry is concerned, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of his Department's community charge practice notes were designed to assist registration officers in the compilation of the registration form; and on what dates each was dispatched to local authorities.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following five practice notes have been issued to local authorities about various aspects of the task of compiling their community charges register:

  Date of issue

  Title

  26 August 1988

  Practice Note No. 3: The Community Charges Register

  26 August 1988

  Practice Note No. 4: Data Protection and the Community Charge (Volumn 1)

  14 October 1988

  Practice Note No. 6: Omission of Names from the Public Extract of the Register

  11 November 1988

  Practice Note No. 8: The Community Charge Canvass

  1 February 1989

  Practice Note No. 10: Data Protection and the Community Charge (Volume 2)

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to exempt from poll tax young people who are required to remain in secondary education beyond their 18th birthday; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Young people who remain at school after their 18th birthday are exempt from the community charge for as long as their parents are entitled to claim child benefit on their behalf.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the review of the building regulations.

  Mr. Trippier
  The first part of the review of the building regulations has been completed and my right hon. Friend has today laid regulations amending the Building Regulations 1985. The main changes concern parts F (Ventilation), G (Hygiene), H (Drainage and Waste Disposal), J (Heat Producing Appliances) and L (Conservation of Fuel and Power). It is intended that the new regulations should come into force on 1 April 1990, to allow time for users to familiarise themselves with the new 484
  requirements. Revised approved documents, which provide practical guidance on meeting the requirements, will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office later this month, together with a publication produced by the Building Research Establishment on good practice for securing effective thermal insulation in buildings. Proof copies of these documents have been placed in the Library, together with a summary of the changes that have been made. My right hon. Friend has decided not to proceed at present with amendments to the mandatory rules for means of escape in case of fire which were the subject of consultation in December 1988 and the need for these amendments will now be considered as part of the review of part B (Fire). Further consultation papers on this and other outstanding parts of the review will be issued later this year.

  Nature Conservancy Council/Countryside Commission
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the current organisation of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Government are concerned to improve the way we handle the conservation of wild fauna and flora and the countryside. There are great differences between the circumstances and needs of England, Scotland and Wales in this respect. The present organisational arrangements do not match these differing requirements. The Nature Conservancy Council is responsible for nature conservation throughout the whole of Great Britain. The Countryside Commission is responsible for conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the countryside in England and Wales, while there is a separate Countryside Commission for Scotland. There are increasing feelings that these arrangements are inefficient, insensitive and mean that conservation issues in both Scotland and Wales are determined with too little regard for the particular requirements in these countries.

  We have therefore concluded that the functions which the Nature Conservancy Council at present exercises throughout Great Britain and the functions which the Countryside Commission exercises in England and Wales should be exercised in future by separate bodies for England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have decided that the nature conservation and countryside functions should be the responsibility of a single body in each country. They are making parallel statements about their detailed plans today. The Government believe that combining these responsibilities in one body for Scotland and one for Wales will allow a more comprehensive approach to pursuing the special inheritances of wildlife and natural beauty in these two countries.

  We have also considered what would be best for England. In view of the much greater density of population and consequent pressure upon the land, we believe that it would be right to maintain the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission as separate bodies in England.

  I shall continue to be responsible for representing the United Kingdom's interests on nature conservation matters within the European Community and under

  485
  international conventions. Arrangements will be made for all the necessary advice to continue to be available to me for that purpose.

  These changes require legislation, which we shall bring forward at the earliest opportunity, and which will be confined to organisational matters.

  I should like to pay a warm tribute to the manifest achievements of the chairmen, members and staff of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. We have the most comprehensive administrative arrangements for dealing with wildlife and countryside issues anywhere in the European Community, and perhaps the world. It has become clear that these arrangements will be even more effective if they can take more account of differences in local conditions between different parts of Great Britain. These proposals will achieve that.

  "Releasing Enterprise"
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue further policy guidance about planning agreements, as envisaged in the White Paper "Releasing Enterprise."

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have today issued a consultation paper seeking views on proposals to amend section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and on draft guidance to local authorities about the proper limits of their statutory development control powers.

  The three proposed legislative changes are: to enable a developer to give a unilateral undertaking to carry out certain works or to do whatever the undertaking specifies; to make provision for a planning agreement or unilateral undertaking to be discharged when its planning purpose has ceased; to enable the Crown to enter into section 52 agreements.

  The proposed draft guidance substantially reaffirms, with some amendments, the guidance given in this Department's circular 22/83. (Welsh Office Circular 46/83.)

  Barkby Thorpe Road, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received opposing the development of the landfill site on Barkby Thorpe road, Leicester.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: Leicester city council has given outline planning permission for the site, subject to a number of conditions. Several representations have been received, including those from the hon. Member for Leicester, East.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions over the past 10 years judicial reviews have been sought to change a decision on a town and country planning appeal determination; and in how many of these cases the review has led to a change in determination.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer, 10 July 1989]: The chief planning inspector's annual reports, copies of which are in
  486
  the Library, include tables for England and for Wales showing the number of High Court challenges from 1981 to 1987–88 to different kinds of appeal decision and their outcome. In relation to appeals under sections 36 or 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, in 1986–87 the original decision was reversed in 14 out of 27 inspectors' cases redetermined; in 1987–88 eight out of 18 such decisions were reversed. Similar information is not available for the outcome of the redetermination of appeals decided by my right hon. Friend, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Plastic Waste
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of the Environment whether he is satisfied that adequate advice is available to the general public on the preferable means of disposal of the various types of plastic waste other than by burning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 July 1989]: The Government are concerned to ensure the highest possible standards in the management of waste. Our proposed new environmental legislation will have the effect of further improving these standards. All producers and holders of waste, except private households, will be placed under a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the legal disposal or reclamation of their waste. A code of practice will be issued together with technical advice on how to meet this duty. Most domestic plastic waste is put out for collection with other domestic waste. Its safe disposal is the responsibility of the disposal authority. The Government support a number of experimental schemes, for example in Sheffield, designed to evaluate the feasibility of recycling domestic plastic waste. We hope that these will demonstrate ways of overcoming the problems associated with recycling this material. Appropriate advice is offered to those concerned. The Government also support Waste Watch, which provides advice to industry and voluntary organisations on all aspects of recycling. These initiatives have resulted in industry recycling an increasing proportion of its own plastic waste.

  Light Bulbs
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to commission the building research establishment to evaluate the energy savings that could be achieved in installing energy efficient light bulbs in differing sectors of the economy.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has instituted programmes at the Building Research Establishment to promote all aspects of energy efficiency in buildings, including energy-efficient light bulbs, in differing sectors of the economy.

  The work will draw on research on the performance of lighting systems carried out by the establishment on behalf of the Property Services Agency and the construction industry directorate. Cost-effective applications will also be promoted, to ensure widespread take-up, through the energy efficiency demonstration scheme and through the best practice programme of the Energy Efficiency Office of the Department of Energy.
  487
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has recently received from Cleveland on toxic waste incinerators.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has received several individual letters and a number of pre-printed letters from members of the public residing in Cleveland. Twelve letters have also been received from several hon. Members on behalf of constituents about the proposed siting of industrial and special waste incinerators.

DEFENCE

  Universities (Defence Research)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate the current amount of research work his Department is financing at British universities(a) in total and (b) into the development of nuclear weapons; and what percentage increase that represents over the last five years.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate the current amount of research work his Department is financing at British universities(a) in total and (b) into the development of nuclear weapons; and what percentage increase that represents over the past five years.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate the current amount of research work his Department is financing at British universities(a) in total and (b) into the development of nuclear weapons; and what percentage increase that represents over the last five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department currently has 690 research agreements and contracts with United Kingdom universities and other institutions of higher education, with a total value of some £55 million, of which the Atomic Weapons Establishment has 40 with a total value of some £2 million. In real terms, from 1985–86 to 1989–90, total annual spending on these arrangements has increased by 6 per cent. and the Atomic Weapons Establishment's element by 9 per cent.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum height for NATO warplanes overflying the south-west on exercise; whether he will reduce the number of these flights overflying from outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on his policy on low-level flying over centres of population.

  Mr. Neubert
  NATO aircraft authorised to conduct low flying training in the United Kingdom are required to follow United Kingdom low-flying regulations which stipulate a normal minimum separation distance of 250 ft. Low flying by non-RAF aircraft based outside the United Kingdom accounts for under 2 per cent. of total low flying activity in the United Kingdom and will continue to be kept under close review. Military pilots are instructed to avoid overflying the centres of major conurbations and built-up areas at low level. It is not possible to avoid overflying the outskirts of major towns or every small community, but pilots will make every effort to avoid populated areas wherever possible.
  488
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list exercises involving low-flying aircraft between July and October 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  Low flying exercise activity in 1989 is expected to be similar to that in previous years. I will, as is usual, seek to notify members whose constituencies are likely to be affected, prior to individual exercises taking place and as soon as detailed planning permits.

  Maritime Strategy
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about maritime strategy.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about maritime strategy.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about maritime strategy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend regularly holds discussions with the United States Secretary of Defence on a wide range of matters of mutual interest. However, it is not our general practice to disclose the details of such discussions.

  Nuclear Depth Bombs
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to providing the Royal Navy with a new generation of nuclear depth bombs.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to providing the Royal Navy with a new generation of nuclear depth bombs.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to providing the Royal Navy with a new generation of nuclear depth bombs.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to providing the Royal Navy with a new generation of nuclear depth bombs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of the studies related to modernising the United Kingdom's theatre nuclear weapons capability, consideration is being given to the replacement of the full spectrum of United Kingdom tactical nuclear weapons, including sea-based systems. However, no decisions have yet been taken.

  F111 Aircraft
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the deployment of F111 is in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the deployment of F111s in the United Kingdom.
  489
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the deployment of F111s in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is currently on an official visit to the United States of America, where he will meet Mr. Cheney and discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 July 1989, c. 155]: In addition to the accident in 1984, there were two other accidents in the 1980s involving FIVE aircraft from RAF Upper Heyford. The details of these are as follows. In April 1980 there was an accident to an F111E near Wimborne in Dorset while en route to France, and in March 1981 an F111E was involved in an aborted take-off at RAF Fairford. The latter was an airfield accident to an aircraft which had diverted from Upper Heyford. Although there was considerable damage to the aircraft, there was no danger to the general public.

  Hospitals
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the under-utilisation of armed services hospitals.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the under-utilisation of armed services hospitals.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the under-utilisation of armed services hospitals.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the under-utilisation of armed services hospitals.

  Mr. Neubert
  The utilisation of service hospitals was considered by the Public Accounts Committee in its 9th report of the 1987–88 Session. The Government replied in a Treasury Minute in February 1989. The Committee's 21st report of the 1988–89 Session, which also deals with service hospitals, was published on 22 June. It contains further observations which are now being considered and will be answered by Treasury Minute.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has as to the current size of the Soviet Union stockpile of chemical weapons; and what proportion of such weapons he estimated are stationed in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to page 9 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 (Cm 675-I). We believe the size of the Soviet stockpile of chemical weapons to be several times higher than the 50,000 tonnes that the Soviets have claimed. We also have good grounds for believing that the Soviet Union has stationed chemical weapons in eastern Europe, but I am unable to say what proportion of the total Soviet stockpile these might currently comprise.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the future role of the Gurkhas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in the House on 22 May, it is expected that the future Gurkha force will have roles that lie within the mainstream of the Army's defence commitments.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the number of men and women recruited for the reserve forces during the past year.

  Mr. Neubert
  During the training year 1988–89 a total of 19,345 men and 3,108 women were recruited into the volunteer reserve forces.

  Demography
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he will take to deal with the effects upon the armed forces of the demographic reduction in youth in the 1990s.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he will take to deal with the effects upon the armed forces of the demographic reduction in youth of the 1990s.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he will take to deal with the effects upon the armed forces of the demographic reduction in youth in the 1990s.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing to add to the information contained in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 (Cmnd 675-I).

  Salisbury Plain
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his policy on conservation and archaeology in the Salisbury plain training area.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer my hon. Friend to recent Statements on the Defence Estimates, which confirm the considerable importance that we attach to conservation and archaeology. This applies on Salisbury plain., as elsewhere on the defence estate.

  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that, following the closure of royal ordnance factories, he will take steps to ensure that defence materials formerly produced by them continue to be produced from within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In considering alternative sources of production, we take into account the needs of an efficient defence industry and the value of continuing production within the United Kingdom, but we purchase from overseas when the advantages of cost, performance and timescale outweigh the benefits of procuring a British alternative.
  491
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his most recent calculation of the difference between the sale price and current market value of the sale of royal ordnance factories, land and patent rights.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his most recent calculation of the difference between the sale price and current market value of the sale of royal ordnance factories, land and patent rights.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his most recent calculation of the difference between the sale price and current market value of the sale of royal ordnance factories, land and patent rights.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his most recent calculation of the difference between the sale price and current market value of the sale of royal ordnance factories, land and patent rights.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has had no reason to attempt to calculate the current market value of the assets of Royal Ordnance plc since the company was sold in April 1987. Royal Ordnance plc was sold as an entity, with all its liabilities as well as its assets for £190 million to the highest bidder in keen and open competition. There was therefore no sale price for any of the assets of the company.

  The National Audit Office, for its recent report on the sale of Royal Ordnance plc, commissioned surveyors to carry out an alternative use valuation of the three company sites (Enfield, Waltham Abbey and Patricroft) for which there have been highly speculative and exaggerated estimates of development value. The assessment of the current market value of the three sites prepared for the NAO was between £26 million and £38£5 million.

  Army Manpower
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Army manpower levels.

  Mr. Neubert
  On 30 April 1989 the Army was about 3,500 below strength. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made a statement to the House on 8 June, column 388, about the measures that the Army was taking to improve recruitment and retention.

  Air-to-Surface Missiles
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the provision of a tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the provision of a tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the provision of a tactical air-to-surface missile.
  492
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the provision of a tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is currently on an official visit to the United States of America, where he will meet Mr. Cheney and discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Army Trucks
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce which company has won the order for new military trucks for the Army; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) on 29 June 1989 at columns 531–32.

  Force Reductions
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the defence implications of reductions in(a) conventional forces and (b) short-range nuclear forces.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the defence implications of reductions in(a) conventional forces and (b) short-range nuclear forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any recent evidence to suggest that the Warsaw pact forces are adopting a defensive rather than an offensive strategy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The military reductions and restructuring of forces along defensive lines recently announced by Warsaw pact states have, of course, only just begun to be implemented. They are due to be completed by the end of 1990. Although they will to some extent reduce Warsaw pact offensive capability, we will not be able to judge their full impact until then. However, in terms of fielded capability, the Warsaw pact would still possess a significant advantage over NATO in all the systems needed to conduct conventional operations deep into an enemy's territory.

  Defence Exports Services Organisation
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate the annual salary of the head of the defence exports services organisation and the extent of the bonuses for which he could be eligible.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate the annual salary of the head of the defence exports services organisation and the extent of the bonuses for which he could be eligible.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 6 July 1989, col.260–61.

  Armed Forces (Recruitment)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits were taken into the armed forces over the last three years for which figures are available; and what are the projections for the next three years.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of men and women recruited into the armed forces from civilian life in each of the last three financial years was:

  Number

  1986–87

  34,049

  1987–88

  33,826

  1988–89

  33,863

  While the services do project recruiting achievement for planning purposes, the figures are necessarily very tentative and it would not be appropriate to make them public.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were recruited into the armed services and how many left the armed services during 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  During the financial year 1988–89, 33,863 men and women entered the armed forces from civilian life and 39,278 service men and women left the armed forces.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to introduce changes in the terms and conditions upon which members of the armed services serve in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Neubert
  SDE 89 explained that it is the Government's aim to ensure that terms and conditions of service remain relevant to modern conditions. Against this objective, terms and conditions of service, including those relevant to Northern Ireland, are kept under review. However, I am able to offer an assurance that there are no plans to remove the existing waivers of food and accommodation charges which apply in Northern Ireland.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the implications for British defence policy of the current extent of countries accepting the principle and practice of nuclear non-proliferation.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the implications for British defence policy of the current extent of countries accepting the principle and practice of non-proliferation.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the implications for British defence policy of the current extent of countries accepting the principle and practice of nuclear non-proliferation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

  Sea Systems Control Staff
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what study has been made of staff savings due to the colocation of sea systems controllerate staff; and what notional saving in staff has been used to justify the costs of relocating over 1,000 Ministry of Defence personnel.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The organisation of the sea systems controllerate has been subject to several recent major studies, including by the Ministry of Defence's manpower auditors, which concluded that significant economies in working efficiency could be achieved by a reorganisation on abovewater and underwater ship systems lines coupled with colocation of the dispersed project staffs. Colocation would lead to efficiency savings from fundamental changes in working practices. These savings are expected to amount to at least 10 per cent. of the manpower requirement of the sea systems controllerate. In the initial investment appraisal of colocation carried out last year, the consequent saving of 460 posts was valued at £8·1 million per annum.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the comparability of air safety for United Kingdom forces and those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the comparability of air safety for United Kingdom forces and those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the comparability of air safety for United Kingdom forces and those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

  Mr. Neubert
  The air safety record of United Kingdom forces is broadly comparable with those of other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces operating similar equipment.

  Nuclear Tests (Compensation)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet been able to assess the implications for his policy on compensation arrangements to United Kingdom ex-service men and their families who were nuclear test victims of the recent decision in the Australian courts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The court in Australia has yet to make available the judgment, and consequently we cannot say at present what implications, if any, there might be for British participants in the United Kingdom nuclear test programme.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the disposal of Ministry of Defence quarters which are found to be surplus to requirements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is our policy not to retain quarters for which we have no long-term requirement. Wherever
  495
  possible surplus properties will be offered for sale, either to service personnel through the services' own discount scheme or on the open market at full market price, if the quarters are not suitable for individual sale through this scheme. Quarters which cannot be sold, for example because of their location, may be reappropriated for other defence purposes or demolished.

  Nuclear Free-fall Bombs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress on the replacement of the WE177 nuclear bomb.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his policy towards the replacement of the nuclear free-fall bombs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are still studying a number of procurement options for possible replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Nuclear Test Bans
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what would be the implications for United Kingdom nuclear forces of a(a) partial and (b) total nuclear test ban.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what would be the implications for United Kingdom nuclear forces of a(a) partial and (b) total nuclear test ban.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what would be the implications for United Kingdom nuclear forces of a(a) partial and (b) total nuclear test ban.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what would be the implications for United Kingdom nuclear forces of a(a) partial and (b) total nuclear test ban.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1963, the United Kingdom has been a party to the partial test ban treaty, which prohibits nuclear tests in all environments except underground. As was made clear in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 (Cm. 675-I, paragraph 217), a comprehensive test ban remains a long-term goal. For the foreseeable future, however, our security will depend on deterrence, based on nuclear weapons. We must, therefore, continue to test our nuclear weapons to ensure that they remain effective and up-to-date.

  NATO
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to discuss the defence requirements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will meet SACEUR at the meeting of NATO's Nuclear Planning Group in the autumn.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
  496
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Frend will meet Dr. Woerner at the Royal Tournament on 20 July.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next have meetings with Defence Ministers of other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will have a number of opportunities for discussion with NATO colleagues over the coming months. The next NATO ministerial meeting will be at the Nuclear Planning Group in the autumn, when Ministers will discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the United States stockpile of chemical and biological weapons(a) currently and (b) over the next five years.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the United States stockpile of chemical and biological weapons(a) currently and (b) over the next five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott).

  Cancer Clusters
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations his Department has had about cancer clusters around nuclear installations for which he is responsible.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations his Department has had about cancer clusters around nuclear installations for which he is responsible.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations his Department has had about cancer clusters around nuclear installations for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations his Department has had about cancer clusters around nuclear installations for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am not aware of any recent representation to my Department on this matter.

  Out-of-area Commitments
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the United Kingdom's defence budget is currently spent on out-of-area commitments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost in 1989–90 of maintaining our overseas commitments in Belize, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong is £243 million, which represents 1·2 per cent. of the defence budget. This figure includes directly attributable expenditure on capital works and equipment and on running costs for material and manpower. It is not possible to provide directly attributable costs for the Armilla patrol since financial provision is made for the operation of the fleet as a whole.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animal experiments for warfare testing purposes his Department has been directly responsible for in the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animal experiments for warfare testing purposes his Department has been directly responsible for in the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animal experiments for warfare testing purposes his Department has been directly responsible for in the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animal experiments for warfare testing purposes his Department has been directly responsible for in the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence does not conduct experiments for warfare testing purposes with live animals. Live animals are not used in the development or testing of weapons, but only to develop protective measures against attack and to improve the treatment of injuries. The Ministry of Defence complies fully with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and the figure recorded under the Act by the Home Office for 1987, the last full year for which figures are available, was 9,200. This represents less than one half of 1 per cent. of all animal experiments conducted in the United Kingdom.

  AWACS Offset Agreement
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in monitoring the number of jobs involved in contracts placed under the AWACS offset agreement.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in monitoring the number of jobs involved in contracts placed under the AWACS offset agreement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).

  Dog Training
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made with his consideration of the report of the consultants into the future of dog training at the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Peat Marwick McLintock study into future arrangements for canine and equine-related training in the services has recommended that the Ministry of Defence should vacate and sell the land at Melton Mowbray currently occupied by the RAVC and set up a service animal centre at RAF Syerston, encompassing canine and equine-related training, and allied functions, and using RAF Newton for administrative/domestic support. I am minded to accept the recommendation that a service animal centre should be formed embracing the existing separate service establishments.
  498
  The choice of site may, however, be affected by a current study into the future of the whole RAF estate including RAF Newton and RAF Syerston. In any event, as a result of the Peat Marwick McLintock study, some land at Melton Mowbray has been identified for disposal, whether or not the service animal centre is established there. We shall be exploring the possibility of the development of the site with the local planning authority. An announcement on the long-term location of the service animal centre will be made as soon as possible.

  Meanwhile, we are implementing other recommendations made by the consultants concerning the common adoption of best practices, in preparation for the formation of the joint centre. This is expected to save at least £4 million in running costs over the next 10 years. The proposals for the formation of the joint centre are consistent with Government policies on the optimum utilisation of the defence estate, and the introduction of more efficient practices in those areas working in support of the operational capabilities of the armed forces.

  Bullying
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with each of the initiatives intended to reduce bullying in the armed forces.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the right hon. Member to the statement I made on 28 June, column 1075. A copy of my letter of 23 June to the hon. Member for Clacknaannan (Mr. O'Neill), setting out the progress made in implementing the measures, has been placed in the Library.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in respect of the radar system for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).

  Force Verification
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the defence implications of inspection and verification of United Kingdom forces, and those of other nations in the event of an early agreement to reduce conventional and nuclear forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend regularly discusses arms control matters, including the defence implications of inspection and verification regimes, with Mr. Cheney and will do so during the course of his current visit to the USA.

  Helicopters
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what low-flying restrictions are imposed on service helicopters.

  Mr. Neubert
  The general regulations governing the use of the United Kingdom low flying system by fixed-wing aircraft apply also to rotary wing aircraft but with appropriate modifications to take account of their different capabilities.

  Railgun
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on the progress of the Railgun project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neil) on 28 June, at column 456.

  Independent European Programme Group
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made through the Independent European Programme Group in achieving a more open defence market among North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Significant progress is being made by the Independent European Programme Group towards the creation of an open European defence equipment market, based on measures set out in the action plan approved by Ministers at the Luxembourg meeting in November 1988. At their subsequent meeting in Lisbon on 28 June this year, Ministers reviewed the steps being taken to achieve the key objectives. The central feature of the open market is the dissemination to potential suppliers of information about bidding opportunities. To this end, Governments have now nominated one or more focal points to which companies in other Independent European Programme Group countries can register interest in bidding for defence contracts. Countries have also agreed to publish contracts bulletins by the turn of the year. The bulletins will be similar to those already issued by the United Kingdom and France. This more open market will bring benefits to all participating states. It will also be of considerable value to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as a whole by enhancing efficient procurement and thereby strengthening the European contribution to the Alliance. With this in mind the Independent European Programme Group will continue to discourage any protectionist tendencies on either side of the Atlantic. Another important initiative which complements the open market is the creation of a European technology plan—to be known as Euclid—which will foster co-operation in research among Independent European Programme Group nations. During its current chairmanship of the Independent European Programme Group, the United Kingdom's aim will be to ensure that the work of the group is taken forward effectively in the best interests of all the allies.

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, 19 June, column 60, on toxic waste at Ministry of Defence premises, he will give the reason why it is not the practice to release details of such materials; and if he will consider revising his policy towards publication in line with the practice adopted by United States military facilities.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the basis for his policy not to disclose details of radioactive and toxic waste stored or disposed of at Ministry of Defence premises.
  500
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Disclosure of such information could indicate the scale and nature of operations in certain programmes on which detailed revelation would not be in the national interest.

  Fuel Containers (Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which two 10ft x 2ft fuel containers were dropped at Stowford Cross in North Devon on Thursday 29 June; and what steps he is taking to prevent this happening in the future.

  Mr. Neubert
  The fuel containers in question were jettisoned by a Royal Navy Sea Harrier operating from the Royal Naval air station at Yeovilton, while the aircraft was on an air combat training exercise. The aircraft unintentionally went into a spin and the pilot, following the correct procedures, released the fuel tanks as part of his spin recovery action. The fuel tanks were empty at the time. A local investigation has established that the pilot was not in breach of any regulations.

  To minimise the risk to the public, air combat training is carried out over the least populated areas available and always well away from towns and cities. It is also very rare for a Sea Harrier to enter into a spin in this way. The risk therefore of a repetition of this incident or of any consequent injury to persons on the ground is considered to be remote.

  Cereal Fields
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the inquiries initiated by Army helicopters based in the south-west in investigating the origin of flattened circular areas of wheat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence is not conducting any inquiries into the origins of flattened circular areas of crops. However, we are satisfied that they are not caused by service helicopter activity.

  Service Children Education Authority
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children currently attend schools run by the service children education authority in(a) north-west Europe, (b) Gibraltar, (c) Hong Kong, (d) Cyprus and (e) elsewhere.

  Mr. Neubert
  Figures at summer term 1989:

  Number

  North West Europe

  23,880

  Gibraltar

  679

  Hong Kong

  1,610

  Cyprus

  1,655

  Elsewhere

  163

  TOTAL

  27,987

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many teachers are employed in schools run by the service children education authority.

  Mr. Neubert
  Figures are for summer term 1989:
  501

  Number

  North West Europe

  1,319

  Gibraltar

  38

  Hong Kong

  108

  Cyprus

  122

  Elsewhere

  11

  TOTAL

  1,598

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of the service children education authority.

  Mr. Neubert
  Controller of the service children education authority (SCEA) is a tri-service rotational appointment currently filled by a Royal Air Force group captain of the administrative branch (education specialisation). There are three deputy controller appointments, currently filled by a Commander RN, a lieutenant colonel RAEC, and a civil servant, senior executive officer. The three deputy controllers are between them responsible for SCEA sections each headed by a major (or service-civilian equivalent), and staffed mainly by civil servants. The total complement of SCEA headquarters is currently 30 personnel.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relationship between the service children education authority and Hampshire county council.

  Mr. Neubert
  Hampshire local education authority is one of a number of authorities represented on the standing committee for the education of service children (UK), chaired by controller SCEA. SCEA purchases from Hampshire local education authority, among other sources, a range of advisory support services for service children's schools (SCS) overseas. This includes careers guidance, which is provided by local education authority careers officers visiting overseas schools. In addition SCEA buys in Hampshire local education authority advisory time for both primary and secondary schools.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether schools run overseas by the service children education authority are subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors operating from the Department of Education and Science; and whether the inspectors' reports are published.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether work experience programmes are available to children in north-west Europe attending schools run by the service children education authority.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes. Work experience in north-west Europe is normally organised for 4th-year children (age 14 to 15) in two-week blocks usually during the summer term. Fifteen to 16-year-old children who are following CPVE (Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education) also have a short period of work experience.

  IUKADGE Command and Control System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to publish his assessment of the independent audit of the IUKADGE command and control system.
  502
  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. Both the independent audit of the IUKADGE command and control system and the Ministry of Defence's subsequent assessment of its report will contain information that is both classified and commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date were all of the elements of the IUKADGE command and control system originally intended to be in service use, and when the system was first ordered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our practice, nor has it been the practice of previous Governments, to release planned in-service dates of defence equipment.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the differences between the operational capabilities of the IUKADGE command and control system that is currently on order and the system that it is due to replace.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  When the IUKADGE is fully functioning, the CCS will be the focus of the management of all air defence resources, including early warning and reaction systems. Information on its specific operational capabilities is, however, classified.

  Single Software Language
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the current rules of NATO international competitive bidding now allow the specification of a single software language.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  ADA is now NATO's single preferred language standard for real-time defence computer applications. According to the present rules for NATO international competitive bidding, the use of ADA for such applications is strongly recommended although not mandatory.

  Berthing Facilities (East Coast)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many east coast ports adopt a policy of refusing berthing and bunkering facilities to Royal Navy ships.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy has not encountered any ports which adopt such a policy.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all accidents or potentially hazardous incidents involving aircraft flying from RAF Upper Heyford while the base has been under the operational control of the United States Air Force.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 7 July 1989]: Since 1970, the period for which records are readily available, there have been 14 accidents to aircraft from the 20th tactical fighter wing based at RAF Upper Heyford. These accidents all took place during training exercises well away from the base. The dates and locations of the accidents are as listed:

  Date

  Aircraft

  Area

  28 May 1970

  F-100

  The Wash

  18 January 1972

  F-111E

  Leuchars, Scotland

  11 January 1973

  F-111E

  West of Stratford upon Avon, Warwickshire

  503

  Date

  Aircraft

  Area

  15 May 1973

  F-111E

  Kintyre, Scotland

  5 March 1975

  F-111E

  Cumbrian Mountains

  5 November 1975

  F-111E

  Wainfleet range, Lincolnshire

  31 October 1977

  F-111E

  4 miles North West of Llangadfan

  24 July 1979

  F-111E

  North Sea near Wethersea

  30 October 1979

  F-111E

  Harlton, Cambridgeshire

  504

  Date

  Aircraft

  Area

  12 December 1979

  F-111E

  Wainfleet range, Lincolnshire

  12 December 1979

  F-111E

  Newton Stewart, Scotland

  29 April 1980

  F-111E

  Wimborne, Dorset

  13 March 1981

  F-111E

  RAF Fairford

  9 August 1984

  F-111E

  Tain range, Scotland

  It is not the practice of the United States Air Force to classify incidents as "potentially hazardous".

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

Soviet Nuclear Submarine Production
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest NATO estimate of the rate of production of Soviet nuclear submarines with and without nuclear missiles and how this compares with each of the years since President Gorbachev came to power in 1985.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Soviet Union completed the construction of five nuclear submarines in 1988, of which three are known to be armed with nuclear missiles. This annual production rate is in line with that for the 1980s as a whole; there has been no reduction in output of nuclear submarines since President Gorbachev came to power in 1985.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any field of armaments in which the huge preponderance of Soviet strength over NATO strength has been reduced since Gorbachev came to power and started talking words of peace but not putting anything into action in regard to his armament production?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, so far as we can ascertain, the Soviet defence budget has been reduced by not so much as a single rouble since Mr. Gorbachev took power.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord point out that all submarines to which he referred were presumably ordered by Mr. Gorbachev's predecessors? It would be interesting to know what has happened to the rate of new orders since Mr. Gorbachev took over.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, unfortunately, the Soviet Union does not announce its new orders in the way in which we do. Of course, it is true that the submarines to which I have referred were, for the most part, ordered before Mr. Gorbachev came to power, but it would have been open to him to cancel them.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would it not have been a little less misleading for that answer to have been made clear to begin with? What is the advantage of making things look worse than they really are?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, surely what matters is the number of submarines that rolled down the slipways during the period in question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the Minister care to help the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, by giving the statistics for the production of NATO forces submarines over the same period? Does the Minister not agree with me that it is more important to look towards verified negotiated reductions of forces and to welcome positive moves, both by President Bush at the NATO summit and by President Gorbachev, rather than entering into arguments about the rate at which Soviet submarines and missiles are being built?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course I agree that the objective now must be balanced and verifiable measures of arms control in all the areas where we can secure such agreements. It is perhaps worth noting that, as a result of the SALT agreement, for example, the Soviet Union has been required to decommission two strategic missile-carrying submarines. I understand that it has converted those submarines to another equally offensive role.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the Soviet Union, which is a land mass with very little dependence on sea communications, thinks it requires a navy of this size?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Soviet Union has long maintained that all its armed forces are there for defensive purposes only. That is impossible to square with the scale of the forces which it has maintained. However, having said that, Mr. Gorbachev has undoubtedly brought a new era into the Soviet Union. Let us hope that things will be different in the future.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, has not the Soviet Union allowed a party of Americans, including scientists in the defence field, to inspect a missile cruiser? Each one of its weapons is apparently able to deal with a carrier group. Is this not a question which we might put to the Soviets?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are maintaining our pressure on the Soviets to come to the kind of balanced and verifiable agreements to which I have referred. One has to be fair; there is some sign that, unlike their stance in the past, the Soviets are now more ready than they once were to come to such agreements.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to put the true facts about the operational capability of the Soviet forces at present in the field before the electorate, not only of this country but of our NATO allies as well? We are in danger of wishful thinking along very much the same lines as in the 1930s, and that led to World War II.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think perhaps the clearest exposition of the position in this matter is the passage in the Defence White Paper, which I am sure that my noble friend has seen. So far as a wider audience is concerned, we have produced a document called British Defence Policy, which is, if you like, a plain man's guide to the White Paper and which I hope reaches a much wider audience.

Nature Reserves: Management
2.42 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to take decisions on the disposal and future management of nationally owned nature reserves which they have asked the Nature Conservancy Council to review.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the report recognises that further work is required on a number of important issues. As part of its current programme of work, the council is looking in detail at those sites which it has already identified as potentially suitable for management by others. This council expects to advise the Government formally of the first results of this assessment shortly.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that ad interim reply. Because it is an ad interim reply, will he bear in mind the great concern among nature conservation bodies lest the transfer to private ownership of any of the national nature reserves for which the NCC has a statutory responsibility should result in their being damaged or destroyed? Is he aware that the cause of that concern is the fact that during the past three years at least 500 SSSIs on private land have been damaged or destroyed? Will the Minister therefore say whether the Government intend, before proceeding with any private disposals, to bring forward an amendment to Section 35 of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act? That section places a statutory responsibility on the NCC.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has asked me a number of questions. The first thing to point out is that the NCC is entirely responsible both for the selection and the declaration of NNRs. I am not quite sure therefore what the noble Lord means by statutory responsibility. The NCC is statutorily responsible for all NNRs. The great preponderance of national nature reserves are already in private hands. There are some 235 in the country, whereas those wholly owned by the NCC amount to only 63. That is about 26 per cent.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not a fact that throughout the report the two themes to which the NCC continually draws attention are the shortage of funds for looking after those reserves in its ownership and the shortage of expertise for looking after reserves nationally? Can the Government give an assurance that whatever happens in the far distant future there will immediately be enough funds available to the NCC to carry out its duties satisfactorily during this coming year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, I know, aware, as I hope the House is now aware, that we have increased the funding of the NCC by 150 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is a substantial increase. Every year we discuss finance with the NCC, but it is up to that body to allocate its programme, having been given the sum of money, as it thinks best.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, with respect, that answer is slightly misleading. Although there has been an increase since 1979—in a 10-year period one would expect an increase—during the present year there has been a 5 per cent. cut in grant to the NCC. That is not very progressive, given the circumstances.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the 150 per cent. increase was in real terms. I am sure that very few of your Lordships would have predicted in 1979 that the NCC would receive such a substantial increase in real terms. However, the amount paid to the NCC continues to go up. Last year it was £38·95 million; this year it is £40·15 million. The job of the NCC is now altering slightly. It has spent many recent years—the noble Baroness knows this full well—renotifying SSSIs. That work is coming to an end; so the programme is shifting.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when he refers to a substantial increase it is niggardly in terms of the money that the NCC needs to carry out the job of conservation for this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know of a single body with which I have been associated that has not said to me that it does not have enough funds. There has been a substantial increase to the NCC. We are very grateful for the work it has done. It has done a very good job. The future for conservation in this country looks extremely bright.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the uncertainty which arises from delay in matters of this kind can be very damaging to sites, as experience has already shown? While we do not wish the wrong decisions to be taken, there comes a time when it is better to have any decision than no decision at all. If final decisions are going to be long delayed, certain interim steps such as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will have to be taken to protect sites.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure what delay the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is concerned about. Further work is needed on the report. In the meantime the NNRs, most of which are SSSIs or likely to be designated as such, are receiving protection. However, they are the very special sites.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my opinion hundreds of thousands of landowners carry out many times better work on their own land as regards conservation than the so-called professionals who are paid high sums to do so? Landowners have more practical experience on the whole.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course we appreciate the very valuable work not only of private owners and those who have NNRs on their land but also of some of the voluntary bodies. That is why, out of about 166,000 hectares, some 120,000 are not in NCC hands. They are very well protected under present arrangements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, why do the Government keep on pretending that private ownership of NNRs and SSSIs is adequate for their protection? Surely the Government themselves, in their very welcome amendments to the Water Bill, recognised that, as regards the disposal of water company land, an offer for the surplus land to go into public ownership is a valuable protection which cannot be provided in private ownership.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take issue with the noble Lord. We have never said that the private sector cannot do just as good a job as the public sector in this regard. Many of us go to places throughout this lovely country of ours which we thoroughly appreciate and which are in the hands of private owners.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in the light of these questions will the noble Earl bear in mind that should there be an eventual decision to dispose of any of the 63 nationally owned NNRs—I was talking about the nationally owned NNRs—to private ownership, the nature conservation bodies, which are quite numerous, would be unable to bid for them without additional funds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, obviously we shall look at that situation if it arises. As the noble Lord knows full well, it is with government approval that the NCC funded the RSPB to buy part of Abernethy Forest.
Baroness David: My Lords, the NCC concludes by saying that it hopes that the report will form the basis for discussions. What discussions do the Government intend to initiate and with what bodies?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had discussions with the NCC. However, it is an NCC paper and it is right that the NCC should have the discussions rather than the Government.

Short Brothers: Subsidies
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made to date on the negotiation of clearance for the United Kingdom taxpayers subsidies provided to Short Brothers for the purpose of acquisition by the Bombardier Corporation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, formal notification to the European Commission of the Government's proposed package of financial assistance for Short Brothers plc was made on 22nd June this year, and under the terms of the Treaty of Rome the Commission has 30 working days in which to reply.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information. Will he bear in mind that there may be a large number of our fellow taxpayers who would be only too delighted if the European Commission were to decide that this very large package of taxpayer support was over the top? If the Commission were in its wisdom to approve the scale of the subsidies, would the Government be able to ensure that they would not find themselves in a similar situation to that in which they recently found themselves over the Wang factory in Scotland, where large sums of taxpayers' money could not be recovered?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first supplementary question, he will be aware that, prior to submitting formal notification to the European Commission in cases such as this, officials have informal discussions with officials from the European Commission about how best to present the proposed package of financial assistance. The discussions between the two sets of officials in this case were most helpful. The notification that was submitted drew very heavily on the advice which we received.
So far as concerns my noble friend's second question, of course there can be no copper-bottomed guarantee in any case, but we have a number of assurances from Bombardier, the purchasers of Short Brothers plc. With regard to my noble friend's comment about Wang in Scotland, I do not think that that case is precisely the same as some of the other interesting cases that he and I have discussed over the years.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his reply, which I believe to be encouraging. The noble Lord will know that the Official Opposition has been critical in the past of the Government's attitude, behaviour and policy towards Shorts. Is it of some comfort to the noble Lord to know that we are now anxious that the Government should obtain clearance from Brussels for the arrangement that has been negotiated, as that is in the interest not only of the workforce in Shorts but of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is indeed a great comfort to have such support from the noble Lord. I reiterate that after the formal notification to the European Commission the Commission has 30 days in which to reply, which, according to my calculations, takes us to 4th August. Your Lordships will know that that is the maximum period and we have some hope of receiving news before August.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one further question. Is he satisfied that this is a venture in which it is proper and appropriate for employees in the company to be encouraged to take an interest?
Lord Lyell: In general, yes, my Lords.

Engineering Industry: Training
2.54 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, when the Engineering Industry Training Board is handed over to industry, they will set up a small independent body to monitor and advise those companies whose standards of training fall below an acceptable norm.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, no. The Government believe that the independent and voluntary industry training organisations must be responsible for defining and monitoring standards and key skill requirements and for securing the commitment of senior management in the industry.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that at present, even with a certain amount of surveillance, many companies provide quite inadequate training? Does he agree that if there is no outside surveillance there is a reluctance on the part of any industry training board to hold responsible those who are not doing a decent job? Does he also agree that if that board is controlled by large companies its views will not be welcomed by smaller companies? Finally, does he realise that although it is customary to allow some professions to govern their own affairs—and, where codes of ethics are breached, to deal with offenders—that is not always a satisfactory arrangement? Does he agree that training is a very different matter? It is not a matter of ethics; it is a question which affects all the members of that profession. It is a question of ensuring that a decent job is done.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is my understanding that the Question is about training and not about ethics. I can tell the noble Lord that one characteristic of the 1960s and 1970s was the inadequacy of training arrangements in British industry. Yet in that same period we had a multiplicity of compulsory training boards. There is no substitute for industry recognising the need to train in its own right. Nothing will change that.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not the case that there ought to be close liaison between the industry training board and the chartered engineers?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that the voluntary arrangements will result in a closer arrangement between the various statutory and professional bodies and the industries themselves. At the end of the day companies have to realise that it is in their own self-interest to train, with the increased professionalism that that brings. Until they do so no Acts of Parliament and no exhortation by Ministers will change the situation.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Engineering Industry Training Board has an excellent reputation for training women in the engineering industry? Is he
98
also aware that it currently has a number of excellent projects aimed specifically at increasing the number of women interested in a career in engineering, including women with no previous qualifications? What organisation will undertake that kind of work in future when the EITB no longer exists?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I understand that this very day the Engineering Industry Training Board has written to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment suggesting that it transfers to a voluntary basis. I am aware of the many programmes that the board has run, and I have supported them in the past in a previous incarnation. In particular I pay tribute to programmes such as those for women technicians and the like. The board will, of course, have to make arrangements to ensure that those continue.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the situation which prevailed before the establishment of the Engineering Industry Training Board? Enterprising companies spent a great deal of money on training people only to have the skilled staff they had trained poached by other companies which had spent no money on training. Is he satisfied that the new arrangements for transferring the Engineering Industry Training Board to industry will provide a satisfactory supply of trained manpower in the absence of any external monitoring arrangement as suggested in the Question?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no amount of external monitoring will change the reality that companies have to recognise that they must train for themselves. It is true that in the past many companies poached staff. Undoubtedly at times of skill shortage some may do so today. However, in my travels around industry—and I spend a great deal of time travelling around industry—I have noticed a fundamental change in the attitude of many companies in this country towards training. I think that today we are at long last beginning to make proper provision for the future.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord gave a very disturbing reply to my noble friend when he said that someone will have to make some arrangements. What precisely did he mean? Who will make the arrangements? What arrangements will be made? What part are he and his department playing in this?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the arrangements will have to be made by the engineering industry on its own account. It is the engineering industry which has been responsible for the Engineering Industry Training Board and which has come to my right honourable friend to suggest that the scheme be put on a voluntary basis. Those up and down the land in the engineering industry know that statutory boards have in the past led to increased bureaucracy and precious little new training. The sooner we recognise the, reality of the situation, the better.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of his successors as chairman of the Manpower Services Commission and also the chairman of the Training Commission as it then was both criticised a number of non-statutory training organisations for not promoting adequate training in their sectors? Should not the Government therefore accept some responsibility for ensuring that training reaches an acceptable standard in all companies, particularly those in the engineering sector?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that I am more susceptible to flattery than the next man. I therefore gratefully accept what the noble Lord says about the activities of bodies with which I have been connected in the past. However, we must decide which is the best way to go about the matter—either through statutory boards, which have clearly failed, or voluntary boards, which are working well in many industries. At the end of the day, whether the boards are statutory or voluntary, change depends upon the attitude of those who run industry. It is that attitude which in the long run must change.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Secretary of State has said twice that we must face the reality of this world. Is not part of that reality the inevitability that some employers will not pay a voluntary levy and will poach employees who have been trained by other companies? I realise the problems, but is not some form of statutory levy inevitable and necessary if we are to have a successful industrial training scheme?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fear that such a levy did not work in the past. And there is no way in which it will work in the future. There were some 17 statutory bodies when I first arrived at the Manpower Services Commission: one by one they have gone. We now have voluntary schemes. The industries support the voluntary schemes with enthusiasm whereas they supported the statutory schemes with great reluctance. However, as I fear I have already stated, at the end of the day it is a change of attitude by industry—not monitoring by external bodies or a decision to make the scheme compulsory — that is needed. I am now convinced that industry is changing.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that my noble friend is not asking for statutory bodies to run these matters? Many of us accept that there was a considerable amount of bureaucracy in the days of the statutory bodies. What is asked for is a small, independent monitoring body. Does the noble Lord accept that, at a time when we are running into skill shortages in this country which put pressure on the economy and which in turn add to inflationary pressures, something along those lines might be seen to be necessary? Should not the Government take some part in this?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, only this very day has the application from the Engineering Industry Training Board been received by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for
100
Employment. I have no doubt at all that he will read today's Hansard. If not, I shall draw to his attention what has been said in this House. He may well consider proceeding with the idea, but, whatever the position, at the end of the day it is up to industry up and down the land to put its own house in order.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Secretary of State said that the statutory body that is to be disbanded failed. However, is he aware that when that body functioned under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Scanlon, there were three times as many apprentices in training in the engineering industry as there are now and in industry in general? How can he claim that to be a failure? Is he saying that there is a guarantee that the new body will achieve the figure that was achieved under the chairmanship of my noble friend?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, and to the work that he did at the Engineering Industry Training Board. But it was a different industry then and there were different requirements. It was a time when computer-controlled machines had not appeared and the whole shape of the industry was different. Today, one man does eight men's work in that industry because of the way in which modern technology works. Industry must train for the future and not consider itself hidebound by the past. It is my understanding that the Engineering Industry Training Board has voluntarily asked to be disbanded and to become a voluntary scheme. The Government have not turned it in that direction.

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.4 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS SEROTA) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Fair Employment Commission]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Blease: I rise at this stage to ask the Minister's help in connection with the Bill. I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 1(2) which contains the phrase "promoting affirmative action". That is an amendment to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. In his Second Reading speech, the Minister said that the Bill was a complex and comprehensive piece of legislation; indeed, he went on to say that it was one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation to be put before the House. I think that he meant that in terms of Northern Ireland. Certainly, the amount of consultation and discussion that has been devoted to the Bill in

101
another place explains the fact that it is a complex piece of legislation.
I ask the Minister's help at this stage, first, because the government amendments were not available at an early date and, secondly, because of the speed with which the Bill is being presented to the House and the days allocated for debate. I want to be more positive in what I have to say. I wish to deal with a number of other aspects; however, I should be grateful if the Minister could help us with regard to the procedural arrangements for discussion by explaining various aspects of the Bill. Naturally, we shall deal with matters on which the Government have presented amendments.
As I said, I welcome the proposal for affirmative action. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee whether, among the general duties of the Fair Employment Commission, an obligation is set out in the Bill for the commission to keep its operational arrangements and procedures under review and to suggest to the Secretary of State from time to time reforms that appear wise and necessary. I do not see anywhere in the Bill an obligation and a duty on the commission to keep the operation of the legislation under review.
Lord Lyell: I should say that, if there is any confusion at the outset about the procedural arrangements for dealing with the Bill, the arrangements have been made through the usual channels. I should perhaps preface my remarks by making a slight apology in that there is a commendable amount of speed—but, I hope, not haste—in dealing with each stage of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the matter has been agreed through the usual channels. He will be aware that the tabling of many of the amendments, both by the Government and by his noble friends, was dependent upon negotiations that have taken place between my honourable friend the Minister and the noble Lord's honourable friend. I hope that we have managed to fulfil most of our obligations in this particular respect, ensuring that we put down the amendments as I indicated them at Second Reading.
With regard to the specific point raised by the noble Lord about the commission, the Fair Employment Agency created by Section 1 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 will be known henceforth as "the commission." Clause 1(2) adds to the duties of the commission that of promoting affirmative action. We shall be discussing that matter in considerable detail at a later stage. It is defined, I think, in Part IV of the Bill. Certainly, if the noble Lord wishes, we shall discuss that matter, but I do not think that we should plunge immediately into a discussion about affirmative action. He has tabled an amendment in his own name.
We believe that the Fair Employment Commission is part and parcel of this programme. It has cross-party support and a great deal of support in Northern Ireland. It is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, himself and all his associates with whom he has been working so illustriously through the years.
102
I believe that the duties as set out in Clause 1 provide the Fair Employment Commission with the flexibility to review any of its own actions or activities as it sees fit. The Bill provides the commission with the flexibility that it feels it will need to carry out its duties, including the duties laid down in subsection (2).
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether or not he agrees that there are other people to be taken into consideration besides the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench? Six days is an extraordinarily short time between Committee and Report stages, and three days is a most unusually short time between Report stage and Third Reading of a Bill. I do not understand the urgency of this matter. It is still more than two weeks, indeed almost three weeks, before this Chamber rises for the Summer Recess. Is it not possible to have a little more time between each stage?
Lord Prys-Davies: I should very much like to support the plea that the Government should have another look at the timetable for this important Bill. My noble friend Lord Blease has made a very fair point. The amendments were tabled by the Government on Friday. I was not around on Friday to see them. Many of them are not merely consequential or technical amendments, but are of considerable substance. Many of the provisions of the Bill are technical; nevertheless, they go to the substance of the Bill.
I hope that we shall have adequate time to consider the response of the Minister in the course of today's debate and that the timetable will not be rushed.
Lord Dunleath: I should like to support what the noble Lord has said. I received just 48 hours' notice that the Second Reading had been advanced from Friday to Wednesday. Most unfortunately from my point of view, I was unable to attend that debate. Similarly, the Marshalled List of amendments was not available when I telephoned last week. I obtained it only when I called in this morning.
I honestly believe that this Bill is of too much importance to be rushed through in the way in which it seems to be being hustled at the moment. I entirely support the remarks of both noble Lords who have spoken.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I too support the last three Peers who have spoken on this point. I have great connections with Northern Ireland. I know that certain action may be for the convenience of the Government and I appreciate that point, but I believe that this Bill is too important to be rushed through.
Viscount Brookeborough: I too would like to express support for that view. Especially from the point of view of someone with as little experience as myself, I believe that it would be much better if noble Lords had more time to prepare for the discussions.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: At the outset perhaps I may offer to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, the Latin words mea culpa. I have tried to make special arrangements for him. He has written to me and I know that he wishes to have communications sent to him in Northern Ireland. I have tried to ensure that that is done.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the thoughts on this matter put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Prys-Davies, as well as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, but I had understood that the timetable had been arranged through the usual channels. Certainly a very substantial Marshalled List of amendments was available on Friday morning. The noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Monson, may have a point in that respect. There were a number of amendments. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and his noble friends may have a point in that they may have wished to see the Government's reply in respect of commitments that were given in another place.
Noble Lords opposite will be aware that those commitments were given throughout the various stages of the Bill in another place. Many of them were given at Report stage and Third Reading there. There were continual discussions outside this Chamber and the other place as regards the nature of these amendments and how the Government might fulfil the commitments given in another place at various stages of the Bill. I should have thought that two-thirds of the amendments that were available on the first Marshalled List on Friday morning were tabled in response to government commitments at various stages of discussion on the Bill in another place.
If noble Lords feel that there is a problem in this respect, I proffer my apologies; but certainly it was my understanding that all these arrangements had been made through the usual channels. As the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease, and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough will know, the usual channels operate with a great deal of consensus. I conclude by saying that the largest number of amendments on the Marshalled List today, and indeed on the first issue of the Marshalled List, were tabled in response to commitments that we gave in another place.
Lord Blease: I thank the Minister for that explanation. However, I think that in the process of it we have lost the essence of the issue which I raised; namely, the writing into the Bill of the obligation of the Fair Employment Commission to keep its work under review and to suggest to the Secretary of State any necessary reforms. That would normally appear under the general duties imposed on any particular body at the commencement of the Bill. I fail to see it in any part of the Bill, either buried in the general text or elsewhere.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to take that position away and clarify it for me at some later stage in the proceedings.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps I may try to do that right now. If the noble Lord will look at page 7 of the Bill he will see in Clause 10:
104
"It shall be the duty of the Commission to identify and keep under review patterns and trends of employment".
I think that that is the main thrust of what we are discussing today, what we have been discussing before and what I hope we shall be discussing again. That is my first parry today to the noble Lord. If there is anything more in the queries that he has raised, I shall certainly look into the matter. However, if he looks at Clause 10, to which we shall refer at a later stage and which we shall be able to discuss then, he will see that that provides a fair basis for the commission to act. I hope that, with his knowledge, the noble Lord will accept that.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [The President]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("Department") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. These amendments would remove the power of appointment of the president of the tribunal—a very powerful office indeed, operating in a sensitive area of policy—from the Department of Economic Development and vest it in the Lord Chancellor.
There are at least two very good reasons for the amendment. First, the office of president of the tribunal is a judicial and senior appointment. It is a senior appointment because there can be no appeal from the tribunal except to the Court of Appeal, and then only on matters of law. Clearly, the president must have an unbiased, questioning approach, good judgment, and an ability to translate this complicated law so that it is fully understood by the lay members of the tribunal. We submit—and I believe that the submission is supported by most of the Peers from Northern Ireland and the political parties—that only the Lord Chancellor's Department has the necessary knowledge of the ability and experience of barristers and solicitors to make the best appointment.
There is another reason for the appointment. It is important that employers and employees, prospective employees, and Catholics and Protestants should have the fullest confidence in the independence of the president. He must not only be independent of the local Department of Economic Development but must be seen to be independent of that department. Indeed, the local department may be seen by some people in Northern Ireland as being partisan. Some people will say that its track record is not all that good. But the president of this tribunal must be seen to be independent, impartial and completely outside the influence of Ministers and civil servants.
Those are the two main reasons for this amendment. However, I should like to add that this appointment would not be without precedent. I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appoints the president of the industrial tribunals for England and Wales. That is a good

105
precedent. He also makes appointments to bodies whose remit is confined to Northern Ireland. Thus, the appointment of the president of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal for Northern Ireland is made by the Lord Chancellor.
Those who were present at Second Reading will recall that I indicated that we would be moving an amendment to this effect. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, responded sympathetically—indeed, generously. Re-reading his speech at col. 824 of Hansard of 28th June, it seemed to me that the Minister accepted that the argument was valid, but that the department would have to consult with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before he could respond to such an amendment.
I trust that this afternoon the Minister will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that it is agreed that this important appointment be made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. We are talking about the standing and status of the commission. That is highly relevant to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, before this discussion took place. He spoke about the status of the commission. The commission will have an extremely contentious and difficult role to play. It needs to have all the authority that the legislation can give it. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, says that its duties are found in Clause 10; that it is to identify and keep under review patterns and trends of employment.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Blease, agrees with me that such a commission needs wider authority than that. It needs the authority to say whether its powers and the legislation under which it is working are sufficient for it to do the duties which are imposed on it. By the same token, if the commission is appointed by the Department of Economic Development, for precisely the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested, it looks as though it is an adjunct of a department of government, whereas it should be a free-standing commission responsible to the Government. It should report not to a civil servant but to the Secretary of State, or whoever it may be.
Therefore the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has put forward and to which I have put my name, with that of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is highly relevant and goes to the heart of the whole business. If this commission does not have real authority and standing, it will be unable to do the exceedingly difficult job which it is asked to do. The Department of Economic Development has a specific role concerned with employment. It is meant to encourage opportunities for employment in all directions in the Province, although that role may not always coincide with the role of the commission. The commission may have to do things which, in the short term, do not lead immediately to increased employment. The roles are different. It would be
106
wholly wrong if it were seen to be an adjunct of a department and not an organisation appointed by the Government and responsible to the Government.
Viscount Brookeborough: In putting forward Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 we are endeavouring to strengthen the integrity and impartiality of the Fair Employment Tribunal, especially in the eyes of employers and employees in the Province. At present it would seem to me that the powers in Clause 3 to be held by the department leave all the cards in its hand. The department appoints the president. It may accept his resignation, revoke his appointment if it thinks he is unfit, and may nominate another person should he be unavailable. In addition to that, in Clause 42(1) a Northern Ireland department may refuse to give an unqualified person any financial assistance. Subsection (2) refers to,
"financial assistance by way of grant or otherwise".
As Members of the Committee are aware, there are many people in Northern Ireland who have reservations about the impartiality of departments of government there. I do not agree with this feeling of mistrust; nevertheless, it exists. I have great admiration for the way in which various Northern Ireland departments operate in sometimes not very easy circumstances.
In the eyes of the employer, the department appoints and dismisses the very person who may be ultimately responsible for deeming it as unqualified for receiving government aid, which the department administers. I believe that this does nothing to improve the perception of integrity and impartiality of this legislation.
Clause 3(4) states:
"If, in the opinion of the Department the President is unfit to continue in office or is incapable of performing his duties, the Department may revoke his appointment".
I believe that to the layman it means that the interpretation of the word "unfit' is left to the department. It is logical therefore in his mind that, if the department does not like the decisions of the tribunal, the department can sack the president and appoint another who may carry out its own bidding. In addition, the fact that the president will be a barrister or solicitor means that any undue interference by the department will result in the perception of unacceptable interference by government in the judicial system. I therefore ask the Minister to accept that these amendments are desirable.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: I entirely concur with what has been said. It is of cardinal importance that this position should not only be completely independent of the department and of the Government, but should be seen to be independent. Having complete confidence in the competence and impartiality of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and secure in the knowledge that he bears no allegiance to the Free Presbyterian Church in Ireland, whose permanent Moderator is a friend of mine and sits in two other places, I entirely support and accept that it should be up to the Lord Chancellor to make this appointment.
Lord Lyell: We are particularly grateful for the eloquence with which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has put his case both today and at Second Reading. This is not the first time that the suggestion has been made that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, rather than the Department of Economic Development for Northern Ireland, should have the say in this matter.
At the outset at Second Reading, I informed noble Lords that, in consultation with my noble and learned friend, we would consider the points so eloquently put forward this afternoon by both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and other noble Lords. I am delighted to be able to inform him, my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that, as a result of consultation, my noble and learned friend has agreed to take the responsibility for making this appointment.
However, there are some drafting complexities in relation to which I shall not detain the Committee this afternoon. I am afraid that we cannot effect all the wished-for changes in the Bill simply by accepting the four amendments on the Marshalled List, though I hope that at the next stage I shall have firm news for Members that my noble and learned friend has taken on board and agreed to the four amendments set out by the noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will agree to withdraw his amendment because it is in the Government's interest and that of the Committee that we fulfil this obligation.
If my noble friend Lord Brookeborough can wait until Clause 42, I may be able to allay his concerns. I am grateful for his thoughts on the integrity of government departments. My own department, the Department of Agriculture, will note his comments. That excellent newspaper, the Impartial Reporter, will also note the comments of my noble friend. Given that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the Committee will accept that our undertaking to meet the amendment will be fulfilled as soon as possible.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am sure I speak on behalf of all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for responding so favourably to the amendment. We are content to rely on his words so that, by the time we come to Report stage, we shall have an amendment, or a series of amendments, which will be acceptable. We rely on the words of the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Tribunal procedure.]:
Lord Blease Lord Blease moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("substantial") and insert ("proven").
The noble Lord said: I wish to deal with two matters: the first is the amendment and, on the second, I invite the Minister to explain an aspect of the clause to me. Clause 5 deals with tribunal procedures. The substance of my amendment is concerned with Clause 5(5) (b) (iii) and (iv). I am particularly worried about the word "substantial" and the context in which it is placed. In my view the word "substantial" is too subjective a term to use in legislation. We are dealing here with the giving of evidence either by a complainant or someone who appears before a tribunal and is invited to give evidence. Such people could be deeply concerned about the matters on which they are providing information.
The weighing up of that type of information cannot, I believe, be wrapped up in the word "substantial". We are dealing with the essence of fear: fear in a personal situation or fear for family, friends or fellow workmates. I had thought that the word "proven" might better indentify what I was attempting to convey for insertion into the legislation. But, on reflection, perhaps the word "proven" is equally difficult to interpret, particularly in legislative terms. I shall withdraw the word "proven" and invite the Minister to consult his Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues and the parliamentary draftsmen about the removal of the word "substantial". I believe it will be difficult for tribunal members to adjudicate on these matters. They are expected to give an opinion. The clause provides various grounds upon which the tribunal may hear evidence in private if in the opinion of the tribunal, those grounds are present. That opinion will be conditioned by many aspects of the evidence and also by conditions that pertain in employment factors that occur from time to time.
I suggest to the Minister that this once again puts the onus on the tribunal to give weight to some kinds of information, evidence that cannot be weighted in terms of legislative procedure or in terms of an individual's concept of what he may be suffering. He may be suffering mental anguish. He may be in agony when he gives information against his friends or he may be suffering from fear of what may happen. It is difficult unless one is in that kind of position and knows all its aspects to assess it in any accurate manner. I ask the Minister whether, if I withdraw the amendment, he will take it away to consider rephrasing it or bringing forward an amendment of his own.
Secondly, Clause 5(3) states:
"The tribunal shall give reasons for its decisions."
Can the Minister explain how it is proposed that the tribunal shall give reasons for its decisions? Will they be publicised through Her Majesty's Stationery Office or conveyed directly to the applicant or other interested persons? Will they also be conveyed to the commission? It is not clear in what way it is proposed. It could simply be a written notice sent to the applicant without any reference to the commission which is expected to monitor the events. Also the general public could build up a consensus of how the tribunal is operating. With those remarks I shall withdraw the amendment.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): An amendment must be before the Committee. Is the noble Lord moving his amendment?
Lord Blease: Yes, I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord will see that Clause 5(5) states "Without prejudice" and it will enable the tribunal to sit in private. That is the man thrust of subsection (5). I hope that the Committee will accept the fact that proceedings before the Fair Employment Tribunal will normally take place in public. However, the provision in subsection (5) gives sole discretion to the tribunal—which I am sure the noble Lord will accept contains experts in this area—to decide whether it is appropriate for evidence from any person to be heard in private session. We intend that the discretion will be exercised rarely. That is clear from the constraints which Clause 5(5) places on the tribunal's exercise of that option.
It is similar to existing arrangements for hearings before industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The question of providing proof of potential for harm is an unnecessary constraint on the working of the tribunal and could itself be difficult and cause damage to business in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that the provision in subsection (5) is the equivalent to Article 59(7)(c) of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, with which he will be familiar, as well as to paragraph 1(5)(c) of Schedule 9 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
The noble Lord raised a query about Clause 5(3) which provides that the tribunal shall give reasons for its decisions. That merely requires reasoned decisions. The registration of proof of determinations, including any publicity, will be covered by the regulations under Clause 5(2)(m).
I shall examine what the noble Lord has said. I hope that I have satisfied him as regards his concern about the words "proven" and "substantial". The whole thrust of subsection (5) relates to circumstances in which the tribunal shall sit in private.
Lord Blease: I thank the noble Lord for the manner in which he has dealt with my amendment. I shall read what he has said with great care. I also thank the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees for her help. In my enthusiasm to get ahead with the Bill I jumped two hurdles at once. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: I should like to ask the Minister one question in relation to Clause 5. He will be aware that in the Bill as originally drafted Clause 5(8)—which is now subsection (9)—provided for a
110
maximum fine of £400. That was a scale 3 fine. Obviously it was the maximum which the Government thought fit and proper after due and careful deliberation.
It has been altered upwards not by one but by two stages to a staggering £2,000. That is an increase of five times. That is not all, because an additional fine of £200 per day can be imposed for each day that the requirements are not met. What has pushed the Government into altering their original judgment, which appeared to be sound enough, and raising the maximum penalty by a multiple of no less than five?
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord will be aware that subsection (9) sets out the penalties which apply following a conviction for any of the offences set out in subsection (8). A person found guilty on summary conviction of either offence is liable in the first instance to a fine. That is the maximum fine provided by Article 5 of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.
In addition, someone who without reasonable excuse fails to comply under Clause 5(8) becomes liable on a second or subsequent conviction to the additional fine for each day on which the failure continues after the preceding conviction. Let us not forget that these are not mere points of order. They are fairly serious offences which have already been through the commission and the tribunal. The level is a maximum but we believe that the scale set out in subsection (9) meets the requirement. We take this aspect seriously and we believe that subsection (9) meets the case in this area.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Having made up their minds as to what is a right and proper fine, it is unusual for the Government to raise it by a factor of five, but there we are!
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Code of practice for the promotion of equality of opportunity]:
Lord Blease Lord Blease rose to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 36, after ("to") insert ("advise and").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has an appointment which clashes with the Committee but I understand that he will be available shortly. I have undertaken to—
Viscount Long: I point out to the noble Lord that neither the Minister nor I were informed about the matter with an apology. We should have been informed of this intention beforehand.
Lord Blease: I apologise to the Minister and to the noble Viscount. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, informed the Chief Whip that I had undertaken to move the amendment. However,

111
having made those comments I do not propose to do so.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Survey of employment etc., patterns]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 20, after ("employment") insert ("and of unemployment").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is self evident. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is equally good; and it is probably better than mine but, unfortunately, he is not here to move his amendment so I must proceed with my own.
For the commission only to review patterns and and trends of employment might result in the emergence of a distorted and misleading picture. First, there is the danger that the public here and in Ulster may be deceived into thinking that Northern Ireland's endemic structural unemployment affects one religious group only, which of course is very far from the case.
Secondly, there is an obvious necessity to establish the truth about official unemployment statistics. For example, in the 1971 census the number of people who claimed to be unemployed on the census forms was 30 per cent. higher than the number actually registered as unemployed. That is too large a difference to be accounted for by statistical error. That suggests the existence of a very large black economy. How large is that black economy, and to what extent is it spread between the different groups in Northern Ireland? If it is larger than generally imagined and confined more to one group than another, might not the true employment patterns be different from those which are generally supposed to be the case?
Are factors such as alcoholism more prevalent among one group than another? If so, that would help to explain to some extent the unemployment patterns. To what extent does family size contribute to unemployment patterns? One academic survey suggests that families with more than five children tend on balance—and there are many individual exceptions—to be under-achievers compared with families of five children or less. To what extent will this Bill increase unemployment among certain religious and political groups? It is bound to do that, as you cannot increase employment prospects among one group without decreasing them among another; that is a mathematical impossibility. All those questions need answering. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like to support Amendment No. 8 and, really for the same reasons, to support Amendment No. 9. In order to promote equality of opportunity of employment, surely the commission should be studying and analysing the up-to-date statistics of unemployment. Without that
112
sort of information constantly before the commission, how can it form a view, an assessment, of what is needed and where it is needed?
It can also be said that only by studying unemployment trends can the commission assess whether or not it is achieving results. Indeed, we are constantly reminded that the 1976 Act was a relative failure because it failed to make an impact on the ratio of unemployed between Catholic and Protestant males. Therefore, we on this side of the Committee very much welcome this amendment and hope that the Government can see their way clear to accepting it.
I also agree that, if it is accepted, that will have some resource implications for the commission; but surely that is something which must be met. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. As he rightly said, and as I said on Second Reading, there are many different reasons for unemployment, some of which he mentioned. One reason—and only one—is discrimination. It is because we believe that that particular element which causes unemployment can be tackled by means of the law that the Bill is being introduced.
Of course, the effectiveness of this law must be monitored to see whether it is working. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned, one reason that we know that the 1976 Act did not work is because it had no impact on the differential levels of employment between Catholics and Protestants. Therefore, I believe that this amendment is constructive and helpful.
There is only one remark which I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Monson, make with which I disagree. I may have misheard him, but I thought he said that it was difficult to increase employment in one group without decreasing it in another. Of course, that is only if you take as fixed the level of unemployment in any given society. If the general level of unemployment goes up, you can increase employment in both groups at the same time. That is highly desirable in the Province, where levels of unemployment in all sections of society are notoriously far too high. Therefore, I am happy to support this amendment.
Lord Blease: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 12 and 13. Two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, are included in that grouping. I believe that we have overcome the earlier misunderstanding concerning my speaking to amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. As I understand it, when amendments are left they become the property of the Committee, and that resolves the situation. I thank the Deputy Chairman for her help and I am sorry to add to her burdens.
Perhaps I may say that I support what has been said in connection with unemployment. Equally, let us look at Amendment No. 9. Locations of employment and unemployment are very important. I consider that those should also be part of the information tabulated by the commission.
Lord Lyell: I believe that we have overcome the problem. I was rather startled when I did not find my noble friend in his usual place. I understand that he is at another event. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that as regards an apology, he will do what many of us in Northern Ireland do; that is, look at the good book. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at St. John, chapter 8, verse 7, which I use very frequently. He can disregard the part about the woman taken in adultery, but if he looks at the rest of that chapter he will find that it is particularly relevant to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and myself, as I attended two such events last week.
May I address myself briefly to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 12 and 13, and to the general thrust of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I would ask all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this debate to glance at Clause 10 because, as presently drafted, it repeats Section 11 of the 1976 Act, except that the word "commission" is substituted for "agency". The amendments moved on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mottistone and by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would require the commission to survey patterns and trends of unemployment as well as employment in order to reveal the existence or otherwise of equality of opportunity, as well as to assist the commission in forming an opinion on such equality.
If Members of the Committee glance at paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 10 it can be seen that they refer to the existence or absence of equality of opportunity. That is the thrust, the main drive, of this clause and the Bill. I should like to emphasise three aspects. The crucial objective of equality of opportunity is first, to create such an opportunity in employment; secondly, to secure fair participation in employment and, thirdly, to ensure a more representative distribution of jobs between the communities. That very positive objective is what we are discussing in this clause and in the entire Bill.
The aim of the clause and the Bill is not to ensure some equality of disadvantage between both communities. That would be a negative objective and would be inequitable to both communities. It is for that reason that we take the definition of equality of opportunity in Clause 20(1). That repeats what is in Section 3 of the 1976 Act. It concentrates on employment. It does not mention unemployment. The provisions in Clause 10 properly and ideally complement the positive drive and thrust. I think it is appropriate that they should continue to do so.
We must bear in mind that employment and unemployment are not necessarily reverse images of one another. They are separate indices. The dynamics of any labour market mean that an increase in employment does not necessarily reduce unemployment. For example employment might go up as a percentage or in numbers because more jobs become available, but unemployment may well go up in numbers or as a percentage because many young persons or others come on to the job market. That can happen. At the end of the day what matters in Northern Ireland in economic and fair
114
employment terms is more jobs for the Province and more representative distribution of increased employment opportunities between both communities.
Given that fundamental objective, which is shared by all members of the Committee, it is appropriate that Clause 1 should require the commission, like the Fair Employment Agency, to keep under review patterns and trends of employment. I hope that the Committee will accept the positive thrust of Clause 10 in particular of Clause 10(a) and (b), and that members of the Committee will see fit to withdraw this series of amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I find that to be an unsatisfactory answer. It is exactly the answer that the noble Lord's right honourable friend gave in another place. To say that it sounds better that the thrust of the Bill is in favour of employment and not unemployment and that therefore unemployment is not mentioned, is a slightly ludicrous proposition for anyone to put forward.
This is not a Bill about propaganda; it is a Bill which is intended to help deal by practical means with a situation of some importance in Northern Ireland. It may be the case in exceptional circumstances that when employment goes up, unemployment can go up at the same time, but on the whole that is less common—when employment goes up, unemployment tends to go down.
The whole basis of the Bill is argued from the fact that unemployment in the two communities in Northern Ireland is disproportionately high in the Catholic community. That is what we have to watch. That is one of the things that the commission has to watch. That is why this amendment makes sense and assists the commission in doing its job, and assists others in monitoring that the commission is doing its job effectively.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for his second intervention. I listened carefully to the Minister. He made the point that unemployment is not a mirror image of employment. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. To the extent that it is not, an amendment of this kind is all the more important because one cannot deduce one from the other.
I am not wholly satisfied with the Minister's answer. In some respects I should like to test the opinion of the Committee, but as no other noble Lords' names are down, I am a little hesitant to do so at this stage. It may be that when I beg leave to withdraw the amendment some noble Lords may disagree. If they stay silent, we shall leave it until the next time round, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
("(2) It shall also be the duty of the Commission to keep itself informed about proceedings on complaints under Part III of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 14. These two amendments are designed to further increase the effectiveness of provisions in the Bill in respect of individual complaints of discrimination under Part III of the 1976 Act, as amended. The purpose of these amendments is straightforward. The main thrust of the Bill is for employers to provide equality of opportunity in employment. Strong emphasis is also laid on dealing with individual complaints of discrimination. This is the complementary thrust that might be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and that he was looking at in a different form. It reflects the philosophy behind the Bill, which has obtained a great deal of support in this Chamber as well as throughout Northern Ireland.
These amendments are intended to cover a situation where a complaint may have been brought before the tribunal which irrespective of the outcome of the case, the evidence given, or the decision of the tribunal indicates that action could be taken by the employer to promote equality of opportunity. Provision has already been made for regulations in Clause 5(b). Clause 5(b) provides for regulations to enable the tribunal to send copies of its decisions and the relevant documentation to the commission so that the latter body can keep itself fully informed about proceedings in discrimination cases. Amendment No. 11 extends that provision and makes it a positive duty of the commission to keep itself informed about such matters.
Amendment No. 14 makes more explicit an obligation which already existed in the Bill. Clause 13(1) empowers the commission in a wide range of circumstances to inform any person of its opinion that equality of opportunity was not being afforded. It allows such a person to give a written undertaking that appropriate action would be taken to redress this situation. Amendment No. 14 now makes it explicit that one of the circumstances in which the commission may so act is that to which we have been referring; that is, where a complaint of discrimination gives rise to the commission forming an opinion that equality of opportunity could be better afforded. The two amendments are very much complementary. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has rushed us through these amendments. We shall have to study what he has told the Committee.
Amendment No. 11 places a duty on the commission to keep itself informed of tribunal proceedings. As the noble Lord has indicated, that is associated with a weakness in the definition of "indirect discrimination", but I shall not anticipate that argument at this stage. As far as it goes Amendment No. 11 is acceptable. However, I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions.
If the commission is to be given this duty, what correlative rights will the commission enjoy to
116
enable it to discharge this duty? If we are imposing a new duty on the commission, then we need to know what rights are invested in the commission so that it can exercise that duty.
For example, will it have the right to receive advance notice of the cases to be heard by the tribunal? Will it have the right to the discovery of documents before the tribunal? Will it have the right to demand the notes of evidence presented to the tribunal? Will it have the right to seek advice from the tribunal? We need to know the answers to those questions. I believe the noble Lord touched on some of the answers, but not all of them.
Then we need to know what this duty means. Does it mean that the commission will be under a duty to ensure that it is represented at every hearing of the tribunal? Will it have the right to be represented if the hearing is in private—in camera? Will this additional duty be accompanied by extra resources to enable the commission to carry out this function that was not anticipated when the Bill was first published?
To the extent that this amendment meets adequately the weakness in the definition of indirect discrimination, then it is an inadequate response. The Minister explained the relationship between Amendments Nos. 11 and 14. The core of Amendment No. 14 is in paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) is virtually already in the Bill, but the other paragraph is new. It is addressing the problem that can arise when an individual case of discrimination is presented to the tribunal. The tribunal finds that it is not discriminatory within the definition contained in Clause 48, but at the same time it is satisfied that the practice or the behaviour of the employer is inconsistent with the requirements of equal oppportunity, and therefore the situation should be looked at and remedied by the employer. That is the situation that Amendment No. 14 is really addressing.
We are glad that the Government acknowledge that there is a difficult area posed by inadequacy in the definition. But we say that the best way of dealing with that problem is to refine the definition of indirect discrimination so that the problem will not arise. Our amendment to Clause 48 we shall come to later on today, and that deals with the problem. If the Government have set their face against refining the definition, then we say that the second best way of dealing with the problem is to amend Clause 49 in order to give the tribunal itself the power to attach a recommendation to its decision; namely, a recommendation that the employer should seek to remedy the practice or the behaviour complained of. I accept that that would be a compromise because it could not be enforced.
We believe that the Government's amendment, relying on a combination of Amendment No. 11 and Amendment No. 14, is the third best way and not the second best. The government solution is to give the commission the power to exercise an opinion, on the basis of the evidence presented to the tribunal that it should invite the employer to give an undertaking under Clause 12. In this situation the commission would be unable to enforce its

117
undertaking. In that event it would have no choice but to fall back on the launch of a full-scale inquiry under Clause 11. We say that that is a very poor compromise.
We accept Amendment No. 11 as far as it goes, but we want to know more about the correlative rights invested in the commission. So far as it is intended to address itself to the weakness in the definition, then we say it is inadequate. The best solution would be to redefine indirect discrimination; the second best method would be to invest power in the tribunal to make a recommendation.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: I look forward to a detailed and erudite discussion on Clause 49. I meant no discourtesy to the Committee in brevity. I shall expand a little more on my opening remarks. I hope the Committee will bear with me concerning the way in which I presented my case, especially at this particular stage of the Bill. I hope that it was not in a de minimis area. I wished to provide the Committee with something to go on. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has replied fairly and I shall attempt to answer most of his questions.
I believe that the noble Lord was a little concerned about the notes of evidence made by the chairman of the tribunal. The commission has no standing to require written notes of evidence made by the chairman of the tribunal. However, I believe the noble Lord will agree that it is not necessary in order to enable the commission to form an opinion, because such an opinion can be based on the reasoned decisions of the tribunal. That may be required in regulations under Clause 5(3) as well as on hearings before the tribunal. I believe that the noble Lord himself, in the light of the other profession that he practises, will recognise that it is inappropriate for the commission as a lay body to call for the notes of the legally qualified chairman of the tribunal. We believe that would inhibit the work of the chairman. In addition, it is against all precedent in this area. We also believe that it would be seen as compromising the significant judicial status as well as the independence of the tribunal for which the Bill provides. I also have in mind the four amendments moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
The noble Lord will also be aware that Clause 5 provides the enablement for the proposed Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1989. It contains express enablement for documents that can be sent to any person or body which is so specified. If Members of the Committee were to look at Clause 5(6) that will be seen on page 4 of the Bill. I shall not read it out.
We had in mind providing in the Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1989 that copies of the following documents would be sent to the commission. First, there would be the originating application; secondly, the notice of appearance by the respondent and, thirdly, the copies of decisions that will of course contain
118
reasons. We believe that this series of three documents should be sufficient for any monitoring that the commission shall carry out on any individual cases.
In addition, the commission will be advising on or supporting many of the cases that go to the tribunal and will thus have access to all the documents that come into the possession of the applicant. These documents may take several forms. They may be letters, documents obtained under discovery or witness orders. The applicant will have all the documents which go to the Fair Employment Commission.
The noble Lord also referred to the commission. Under Amendment No. 14 the commission may seek a voluntary undertaking from an employer but it has no power to require an undertaking without first having undertaken an investigation under Clause 11.
Lord Prys-Davies: That is what we say is the defect in the procedure. The commission will not be entitled to ask for an undertaking which it can enforce. If an employer decides not to give an undertaking, the commission will have to launch a full-scale inquiry under Clause 12, assuming that it has the facilities and resources available to undertake that investigation there and then. If the tribunal finds an unsatisfactory state of affairs and puts out a marker about the practices of the employer to which the employer does not respond, a year will be lost before an investigation can be set in train and then completed. That is a weakness in the procedure which the Minister is asking the Committee to accept.
Lord Lyell: I do not think that it is quite the weakness the noble Lord perceives. He occupies himself in a world where legally qualified persons operate. The chairman of the tribunal will certainly be a legally qualified person. The three groups of documents which I set out should be sufficient for the commission—let alone the chairman of the tribunal—to adduce an opinion. I do not necessarily accept the point set out by the noble Lord that there would be a delay. Amendment No. 14, coupled with Amendment No. 11, will strengthen the powers of the commission as well as the powers of discovery and so on of the tribunal. That is why I believe that Amendments Nos. 11 and 14 should be, part of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: Let us assume that the commission receives from the tribunal evidence which persuades the commission to exercise an opinion that it should now ask the employer for an undertaking. The employer refuses to give an undertaking. Where then does one go? What power does the commission have to persuade the employer to change his practices there and then? The commission has no power except to launch a full-scale inquiry which may take 12 months or more to conclude.
Lord Lyell: That is the main purpose of the Bill. In serious cases there should not be an instant reply.

119
I do not believe that the commission should have instant access and be able to take instant action. That is why we say that there should be two separate stages. The noble Lord says that an inquiry will take up to a year. We do not necessarily believe that it will take that long. If the commission wishes to ask for an undertaking which is not forthcoming, the machinery will operate as it is set out in the Bill. We believe that that is the best way of operating.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: No Act of Parliament can be 100 per cent. foolproof, no matter how well it is drawn.
Lord Prys-Davies: The weakness flows from the inadequacy of the definition of "indirect discrimination". If the Government were to see their way clear to refining the definition, the problem would not arise. The Minister has referred to the regulations and to the contents of the regulations. Can he say whether the regulations are already in draft form and whether we may have sight of them?
Lord Lyell: I am not aware that the regulations are in draft form but I shall certainly inquire about that. The noble Lord asked about indirect discrimination. We should wait until we come to the relevant definition in the Bill of "indirect discrimination". We think that the definition given in Clause 48 is the same one that is used elsewhere. An employer in Northern Ireland will be aware of his responsibilities in this area, as indeed he will be in the area of undertakings that we are discussing at this moment. We should wait until we come to Clause 48 before we move deeply into indirect discrimination. It is not germane to the delay to which the noble Lord referred at an earlier stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Investigation of employment etc., practices]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Voluntary undertakings]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No.14:
Page 9, line 16, leave out from ("him") to end of line 18 and insert—

("(a) that, in exercising its functions under this Act, the Commission has formed the opinion that he ought to take action for promoting equality of opportunity, or

(b) that it appears to the Commission from any decision of the Tribunal in proceedings under Part III of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, or from any evidence given in such proceedings, that he ought to take such action.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Appeal to Tribunal against directions under section 12 or 13.]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 32, leave out ("Tribunal") and insert ("High Court").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we return to the status of the commission and the tribunal and to their practices. We want to substitute an appeal to the High Court for one to the tribunal because we are most anxious that the commission and the tribunal should have parity of esteem. If one appeals from one body to the other, the body to which one appeals should be superior to the body which appeals. That would give the tribunal an authority and a standing more important than that of the commission. We think that that is undesirable and that is one reason why the amendment has been put forward.
However, there are other reasons why we believe this to be a reasonable amendment. The commission is subject to judicial review. The Commission for Racial Equality, which is in a similar position, has found it an impediment to its work that judicial review can be used to obstruct and delay its activities. If appeals are made direct to the High Court, this would restrict judicial review on the ground that the ultimate appeal would be to the High Court itself and therefore there would be no reason to duplicate its work.
I should like to reassure Members of the Committee that what is proposed here does not seek to infringe in any way upon the right of employers to seek judicial review. It concerns a simplifying procedure, and simplicity in the law is, I think, generally agreed to be desirable. It is also a proposal which has the support of the SACHR in Northern Ireland which recommended this course.
In general, it is more satisfactory that appeals from one tribunal do not go to another tribunal, but go to a court. It is for all those reasons—namely, the standing of the commission; the simplicity of procedure; and the obstructive way in which judicial review can be used—that I commend this amendment to the Committee.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has advanced the arguments for this amendment admirably. I should only like to say in support that it is also based on the recommendation of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland which is, of course, the Government's own advisory body in this field. Therefore we are especially anxious, for the reasons which have been well advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Government should look sympathetically at this amendment.
Lord Lyell: I should love to be sympathetic; indeed, I think that the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter, and Lord Prys-Davies, will accept that we are now treading over familiar and very eloquent ground. However, the issue of the appropriate forum to hear appeals from employers against directions of the commission was discussed exhaustively in another place, at considerable length.

121
I shall not, therefore, open my remarks this evening by going over much of that ground. The issue was raised, quite rightly, a fortnight ago by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. But, in replying to his comments, and the thoughts put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I am afraid that I do not think I can add a great deal to what I said on that occasion, or indeed to what has already been said at the other stages of the Bill's proceedings.
It is a fact that the Government remain of the view that the respective roles of the tribunal and of the High Court as set out in the Bill are the right ones. To amplify the matter, the tribunal enforces the directions of the commission by the issue of an order of compliance and it also hears appeals against such directions, while the High Court is involved in the last piece of the enforcement machinery when it may in some circumstances exercise its contempt jurisdiction over an employer's failure to abide by an order of compliance of the tribunal.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the issue of the participation of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. He is strongly of the view, in common with SACHR, that appeals should go directly to the High Court; that otherwise there will be unnecessary delays in the enforcement procedure; and that the High Court will be involved anyway in applications for judicial review. But, as the noble Lord will be aware, we have begged to differ on that issue thus far in the Bill.
We on this side of the Chamber believe that the blend of judicial expertise and—something most important in what we are discussing—practical industrial experience, which will be found in the Fair Employment Tribunal, makes the tribunal the most obvious and most appropriate body to hear appeals against commission directions. As my honourable friend explained in another place, the kind of questions which the appellate body will be required to determine will involve, for example, such issues as whether the commission's directions were, in the circumstances of the employer, reasonable, appropriate and necessary.
The determination of those issues and the three baskets into which I put them require, first, a knowledge of the detailed provisions of this legislation; secondly, and even more importantly, close practical knowledge of what actually happens in the industrial and commercial world; thirdly, knowledge of what employment practices mean in practical terms on the ground; and fourthly, knowledge of the full implications of the action which the employer is being directed to take by the commission.
I would be the last to suggest that the High Court would not be competent to deal with such issues. However, for the reasons which I have given, I wonder whether it has the right kind of expert and swift knowledge which is so necessary at this stage of the enforcement process. Moreover, unlike the tribunal, it would not have the opportunity to develop a consistency of judgment which we feel sure that the tribunal will do, with beneficial effects for all concerned.
122
I must say that the Government are still of the opinion that the tribunal is the most appropriate, most reasonable and most excellent forum to hear appeals against directions of the commission. It is for that reason that I ask Members of the Committee not to accept the amendment now before us.
Lord Prys-Davies: If it is the Government's case that the High Court judge may be too divorced from the world of industry and practice, have they considered whether it would be appropriate for a High Court judge to sit with two assessors when the court is considering an appeal?
Lord Lyell: No. I hope I gave no indication that the High Court, let alone the judge, would be divorced from reality. The main tenet of my argument is that we believe that the tribunal already has the relative and relevant legal knowledge, and we felt that the combinations of that legal knowledge and status, together with the practical experience, would be the proper and the best forum to take these particular actions and that it would be best to proceed in this way. Certainly I would never suggest that the judge would be divorced from reality. It is just that we believe the tribunal is the best and most expeditious forum. Of course, the appeal function can be carried out by the tribunal. The Bill also provides a role for the High Court in the enforcement proceedings at a more appropriate stage, if necessary.
The High Court in Northern Ireland, as I am sure the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Blease and Lord Bonham-Carter, will be aware, is under increasing pressure. It is for that small additional reason that I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest, especially those concerned in this area of the equality of opportunity and industrial tribunal affairs, to increase the substantial case load in the High Court; or, in doing so, to cause delays which were referred to at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in the hearing of appeals against commission directions. We believe that the tribunal will provide a satisfactory and excellent forum for appeals to be heard.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said in defence of the Government's clause. I find it a rather odd argument. I say that because having argued persuasively that the tribunal was admirably equipped to deal with such cases, and indeed rather better equipped due to its industrial expertise than the High Court, he went on to say that he was the last person to suggest that the High Court was not perfectly well equipped to deal with such a case.
Therefore, the first argument is balanced: the High Court is just as well placed, according to his own argument, as the industrial tribunal; but he then falls back on the case that there would be delays. I find that a rather unsatisfactory argument. It does not tackle the first argument I put forward regarding the parity of esteem between the two bodies; namely the tribunal and the commission.

123
However, in the light of what he said, and although I regret the position he has taken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Failure to comply with order of Tribunal]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("£30,000") and insert ("£15,000").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. The £30,000 seems a quite draconian maximum fine for what, to most people, seems only a mildly heinous or possibly even a technical offence. It would hardly be recognised as a crime by most people. I have in mind, for example, a firm advertising a job vacancy in newspapers read by the community at large although the commission wished the company to target a particular group by advertising purely in newspapers read largely, or almost exclusively, by a particular group. Such a high maximum fine for such a trivial flouting of the commission's promptings seems to many people very much like overkill. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: It may be of some comfort to the Minister that once again I come to his support. We cannot support the amendments. We think it is important that the tribunal should have effective enforcement powers. It seems to us that to accept the amendment would weaken the enforcement powers of the tribunal and, to that extent, would undermine the Bill. For those reasons, we cannot go along with the amendment.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said. I do not regard the offence for which this fine is the suggested punishment as a trivial one. It is very important that when the tribunal gives an order that order should be obeyed. It is very important that people should treat those orders with respect. It therefore seems to me that a fine of up to £30,000—it need not always be £30,000—gives precisely the discretion to judge between the more trivial and the more serious offences.
Lord Lyell: I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the way in which he presented the amendment. He referred at the outset to what he called draconian penalties. I preface my remarks by saying that this is a maximum figure which we have in mind in Clause 17. I do not see it being used in every case: indeed, we hope that it will never need to be used.
I think that the noble Lord will understand—and it has been clearly taken on board by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, and Lord Bonham-Carter—that the Bill provides, in the event of non-compliance determined by the tribunal as a whole, that the
124
president can then elect either to certify the offender to the High Court or to require the respondent to pay a monetary penalty of up to £30,000. We believe these powers—particularly the president's power to impose a penalty—to be necessary. This gives the enforcement procedure strength, it gives it a great deal of flexibility and it also gives it the benefit of immediacy. The thinking of the Government on this point originally envisaged the courts being used for enforcement purposes. However, on reflection, we became concerned that such a process might be unnecessarily protracted. For a small firm, the penalty of £30,000 would certainly not be reasonable and we do not see this penalty being used in anything but the most extreme circumstances. We believe that it is essential that a penalty for breach of these aspects of the Bill should carry a maximum sufficient to serve as a deterrent.
In the interests of equity and fairness to employers, there is provision in Clause 18(1) for appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law against the determination of the tribunal and provision for a separate appeal, subject to the leave of the Court of Appeal, to the Court of Appeal against the amount of the penalty. Members of the Committee will find that in subsection (3).
I make these two points in order to emphasise to the Committee that the Government are aiming for an appropriate balance in this clause as in others. In that spirit, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to reflect and possibly not to press his amendment.
Lord Monson: I did not expect to get very far with this amendment, nor indeed have I. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that in his view it is extremely unlikely that a fine of £30,000—whether it be applied to very small firms or not—will be used. To some extent, that is reassuring. I still think that the maximum is on the high side but we shall have to see how things work out in practice. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Meaning of "equality of opportunity"]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 15, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person is not to be treated as not having the same opportunity as another person has or would have by reason only of failing to be offered employment because he lacks a particular religious belief, affiliation or training, where such factors are of genuine relevance to the duties or context of the job in question and where the employer is a church or religious body).").
The noble Lord said: The problem which this amendment was designed to cope with was discussed, with some considerable vigour, in another place. As the Bill stands, where a job application is concerned, a religious body can express a preference for someone of its own religious persuasion only if the applicants are clergy. This is plainly ridiculous. The Government's answer was that religious bodies should not worry about the religious beliefs of their gardeners. There may be something in this, although

125
one can think of at least two religious groups which would be highly offended if their gardeners brought ham sandwiches to eat in their lunch break, another religious group which would be equally offended by the presence of beef sandwiches and two or three more which would not take it at all well if their gardener brought a bottle of beer to drink with his sandwiches at lunch time, irrespective of the filling in those sandwiches.
However, we are not really talking about gardeners, but about much more central and sensitive posts, of a secretarial or managerial nature. As the Bill stands, as I interpret it, a Moslem imam would have to employ as a secretary or PA, if he (or indeed she—there is a thought!) were otherwise the best qualified person for a job, someone who was a passionate supporter of Mr. Salman Rushdie. A member of the Church of Ireland, the Methodists or the mainstream Presbyterians would have to employ fervent supporters of the Free Presbyterian Church, as indeed would a Roman Catholic Archbishop if the individual were the best qualified person for the job. Conversely, the head of the Free Presbyterian Church—who I imagine to be the honourable Member for Antrim, North—would have to employ a passionate supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre if he were the person best qualified for the job. Members of the Committee may consider this an entertaining prospect, but progressive liberal Roman Catholic bishops would also have to employ fervent supporters of Archbishop Lefebvre and that might lead to even more acrimony than in the previous example that I gave.
The problems I have posed are not fanciful ones. There has already been one case in 1984 where a Protestant church group declined to engage for a managerial post a man who happened to have been brought up a Protestant but who had allowed his faith to lapse and had become an atheist. The man who failed to get the job took action against the church under the 1976 Act and won. Any law that forces devout religious believers—whatever their particular religion may be—to employ militant atheists in sensitive positions is an ass of a law indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Blease: The Minister will be aware that out of all the various aspects of the Bill this provision on employment by religious bodies has given rise to more controversy and perhaps more misunderstanding than any other part of the Bill. I think it is important at this stage that we should do something to clear up the Bill's intention in this regard. I shall attempt to give what I consider are the arguments being presented in Northern Ireland, and to express the feeling of unhappiness that exists among many religious bodies in connection with this Bill.
At the outset I should say that I do not carry a brief for any church. I can declare my church membership. I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. As this argument also involves political parties in connection with employment, I should say that I have been a member of the Labour Party since the start of my early working life. I have
126
been involved in employing people in the Labour Party. I have been a member of a parliamentary Labour Party for 11 years. I think I am able to reflect something of the general practices within the Labour Party and, I hope, those of other political parties of whose general workings I am aware.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the Bill's intentions. In my opinion a big part of this Bill in this respect is based on the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Some parts of that Act have been withdrawn; they are listed in the back of the Bill. I wish to quote from the 1976 Act. Looking at the list of exclusions in the Bill, I understand that the part of the Act that I wish to quote still stands in this legislation. I shall quote from Section 37(3) of Part V of the Act which deals with excepted employments. It states:
"Parts III and IV, so far as they relate to discrimination on the ground of religious belief, shall not apply to or in relation to any employment or occupation, other than one mentioned in subsection (1), where the essential nature of the job requires it to be done by a person holding, or not holding, a particular religious belief; nor, so far as they relate to discrimination on the ground of political opinion, shall they apply to or in relation to an employment or occupation where the essential nature of the job requires it to be done by a person holding, Or not holding, a particular political opinion".
The noble Lord who moved this amendment made reference to various church organisations in Northern Ireland. I wish to quote from correspondence I have received concerning this dilemma. I have received correspondence from representatives of the two mainstream churches —that is the Protestant and Catholic Churches—but I shall quote from correspondence I received from the Presbyterian Church. I wish to read it out as I think it presents the argument more succinctly than I can at this stage. It states:
"As political parties expect or require from their employees sympathy and support for the political aims and objectives of the Party so the Churches have a right to require from their employees sympathy and support for their mission and outreach, and that this should be acceptable within the law. The Presbyterian Church feel strongly that this right should be made explicit in the legislation in a way that it has not been made explicit in the 1976 Act. An amending clause to this effect would not weaken the overall authority of the legislation. The Fair Employment legislation in the United States of America exempts the Church's work in mission and outreach, as the Church here understands it.
The Church would also expect in addition that the Minister in submitting the Bill to Parliament would direct attention to Section 37(3) of the 1976 Act, the exemption clause, explaining precisely the special position of the Church in the matter of fair employment. If the Government speak from conviction when they say that the law should not detract from the valuable work being done by Churches and Christian bodies, then there is no good reason why this work should not be protected by legislation.… The aim of the legislation is summed up in the White Paper as published and is as follows:—'Measures to promote fairness must themselves give fair treatment to all who are affected by them, or else they will fail their own test'. The Presbyterian Church hold that the proposed law could be unfair to Churches and Christian bodies.
It would be unfortunate, if not disastrous, if the Fair Employment Commission were obliged by law unilaterally to classify certain aspects of Church employment as secular, and therefore open to all applications on the basis of merit in the secular sense, while for its part the Church was sincerely convinced that such employment required religious commitment and Christian faith. It would be contrary to the whole 'merit principle' if the law forbids the taking into account of religious conviction, experience and training in cases where these are of direct relevance to the job in question".

127
I have deliberately put that quotation on record because I understand that the Government are in possession of that note from the Presbyterian Church. However, I am informed that other churches are equally concerned about this matter and support the approach that has been made. I now speak of the Protestant and Catholic faiths collectively. They have stressed the point that they continue to be unhappy about the way in which the proposed legislation will apply to churches and I may add, to party political organisations in Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to table an amendment, but I ask the Minister to consider the matters that have been presented to him in the context of this amendment and the remarks that I have made. It is equally important that exceptions should apply in the realm of political organisations. I cannot for the life of me understand that the legislation would operate so that a member of the Unionist Party—I shall be blunt about this—in Northern Ireland would be obliged to employ a member of the SDLP, or even a member of the Democratic Unionist Party. That applies equally to the other political parties. I am not saying that that applies only to the Unionist Party by any means.
When the Labour Party was functioning in Northern Ireland—my noble friend Lord Fitt will understand the point I am making—it would not have considered employing even a typist who was not aware of the organisational commitments and the political aspirations of the Labour Party. I do not make those remarks specifically as regards this amendment, but I hope that the Minister will take my remarks away and examine them and bring back something that will clear the air in this respect.
Lord Dunleath: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has raised some pertinent points. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, very nearly said what I was going to say. If one has lived and been brought up in Northern Ireland one must be conscious that one very often looks at matters from a Northern Ireland perspective. I have tried to stand back and look at this matter from the perspective of England, Scotland and Wales. I tried to transpose the situation into that context. The nearest I can come to it is to suggest the following situation.
Suppose there were fair employment legislation in Great Britain but it was based not on religious but on political affiliation. How would the chairman of the Minister's party feel if it were obligatory for him to employ a minimum number of Labour supporters in Conservative Central Office? Similarly, how would the chairman of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, feel if it were obligatory for him to employ a minimum number of Conservative supporters at Transport House? I do not think either of them would take a very favourable view.
During an interview the personnel manager might think that it would be indelicate to inquire about the political affiliation of the aspiring recruit. He would therefore say to himself, "I shall not ask a direct question; I shall ask about the applicant's background". If he discovered that the applicant's father lived in Cheltenham and was an active
128
member of the Church of England, then the applicant would be a Conservative. If, by contrast, the father turned out to be a trade unionist from Tyneside, that would be easy; he would be a Labour supporter. That is the bluntness of the instrument that it is proposed should be used.
I fully appreciate that monitoring is cardinal to the Bill. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said, it is only reasonable that just as Conservative Central Office or Transport House would want employees who were broadly sympathetic to their point of view and the objectives of management, the same would be true of the Churches.
For example, the major Roman Catholic charity of international proportions is the St. Vincent de Paul Society. It deals in very large sums of money indeed. Would Her Majesty's Government expect it to employ Protestants, perhaps even members of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ireland? It would hardly be reasonable to expect it to do so. Similarly, would the Protestant Orphan Society, the Church Missionary Society, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel—all Protestant charitable organisations—be expected to employ Roman Catholics who would not be in sympathy with their objectives? I hardly think that that is reasonable.
Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, have very valid points. I support the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Fitt: I feel that I must rise to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I have very vivid recollections of spending hours in Committee in 1975 debating the original Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. It is depressing, after 13 years, to find that many of the elected representatives still oppose this legislation. They do so from a sense of fear. They feel that this legislation will in some way operate to the detriment of their religious supporters.
Although on the face of it this legislation is meant to take account of the great divide between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in Northern Ireland, minor wars are taking place between the different Protestant sects in Northern Ireland. I was a member of Belfast Corporation Education Committee, which at that time was responsible for appointing primary school teachers. I was a Catholic, and it did not appoint Catholic school teachers but only Protestants. There were ecclesiastical representatives on the Committee from the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the Church of Ireland. There was a great deal of canvassing by the Ministers sitting on the education committee to ensure that people of their religion got jobs in preference to members of other religions. I was in the position of being a focus for the canvassing because I did not have any personal or constituency axe to grind.
During the debate that took place prior to the enactment of the original fair employment legislation all the Unionists voiced the same arguments as they have voiced on this Bill. They have voted against this legislation. They do so

129
because they feel in some way that their constituents are a little more privileged than the minority Catholic community. Undoubtedly there are firms in Northern Ireland which are situated geographically in either a Republican or Unionist district which find it well nigh impossible to employ people of a different religion. I believe that that is the situation which the Bill is primarily intended to tackle.
I believe that it would be a very foolish man who would believe that, whatever is said in this place and in another place, they can legislate people of different religions in Northern Ireland into employment in an adversarial religion. One has only to look at what will happen in Northern Ireland tomorrow and what will happen on the streets of Belfast tonight, 11th July. To illustrate how rigid religious attitudes are, the Pope may be in Rome but he will be kicked up and down a great many streets in Belfast tomorrow. A great many unpleasant things will be said about the Pope in speeches by so-called responsible elected representatives who should be wiser and should give a lead to some of their more bigoted followers.
What the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has said is quite true. There is concern in Northern Ireland among the Churches which feel that, out of spite, people will take part of this Bill to try to embarrass certain Churches and force them to take on people of a different religion.
As the Minister will know, religion is a very, very sensitive issue in Northern Ireland. He will hear a great deal about that tomorrow. Any suspicions and fears that exist on the part of the representatives of the various churches will have to be taken into account. No attempt should be made to try to impose legislation on the Churches which they would find it very difficult to deal with.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I can help. We have listened with great attention to the contributions of Members of the Committee to the debate on the amendment. It had been my impression that Section 37 of the Act was working pretty well in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister help the Committee? Does he know how well Section 37 has worked in practice? For example, has there been any application to the commission to review the exemptions under Section 37? Can he explain how Clause 20(2) will assist? It is my understanding that it will reinforce the exemption in Section 37.
The worry must be that the amendment, if it is accepted as drafted, may narrow considerably the coverage of the Bill. Can the Minister give the Committee any indication of the extent to which the amendment, if accepted, would narrow the coverage of the Bill? We want to emphasise that point because the major Churches are heavily involved in ACE schemes. Unless the Minister can reassure us, the worry must be that the extension in the terms of the amendment before the Committee will lead to a major narrowing of the coverage of the Bill.
Lord Lyell: I was about to launch into a diatribe of happiness when the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies,
130
brought me down with a cold shower of reality. So far as I am aware, Section 37 is working well so far, but I shall comment later on one particular church—the Free Presbyterian Church—where there was a somewhat awkward incident a number of years ago which I hope has been resolved. I hope that what I say will indicate the great sympathy that the Government have in this area.
All Members who have spoked have drawn attention to the fact that religion is—in my belief, for the better—a great factor in Northern Ireland. One has only to be in the Province on a Sunday to see church attendance and how seriously everyone in Northern Ireland takes their profession of faith. That is something that distinguishes the Province from perhaps even my homeland of Scotland. For better or for worse, religion plays a large part in the life of everyone in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the amusing though, I hope, serious way in which he presented his amendment. I enjoyed his allusion to gardeners in sundry establishments, and to their luncheon breaks. I wonder whether he will accept that an imam would be allowed to employ a woman as a secretary, but I shall not delve into that area. As for the honourable Member for Antrim North employing one of Archbishop Lefebvre's more rabid flock, perhaps that might come about. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that miracles occur. Looking at some aspects of today's sports pages, he will be aware of one particular event in my homeland the results of which in October and throughout winter and spring of next year I look forward to. However, perhaps I should not be diverted too far down that particular avenue.
I wish to put on the record one or two points to reply to the serious issue that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. First, the Government's appreciation of the tremendous efforts made by churchmen and women in Northern Ireland to provide equality of opportunity in work and of their great generosity in that respect is very genuine.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to events tonight, and above all tomorrow, in Northern Ireland. He will be aware of the annual disturbances and arguments among participants in tomorrow's marches when it it discovered that the main beneficiaries of the refreshment stalls at those events tend to a large extent to be members of the Catholic Church. I understand that at least 10 per cent. of the bands taking part are members of the Catholic Church—at least, that is my advice—so the situation in Northern Ireland may not appear as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, always presents it. But the Government and, I believe, everyone greatly respect the efforts made by persons concerned with the Church to meet the proposals in the Bill and the efforts that everyone connected with the Church make to tackle discrimination.
The second point that we wish to emphasise, because we consider it relevant to the arguments that we adduce on this amendment, is that the public lead given by churchmen and women i n Northern Ireland of promoting equality of opportunity is of paramount importance to Northern Ireland. We

131
have always stressed—I took time out at Second Reading to do so—that the promotion of equality is a collective obligation involving all responsible and farsighted organisations in society. We place the Churches in the vanguard of such organisations. They have extremely valuable and considerable influence in the Province within both communities. It is helpful to the Government when that constructive and positive influence is exercised in the courageous promotion of fair employment and equality of opportunity.
Perhaps I may turn more specifically to the amendment presented by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. First and foremost, there is nothing in the Bill, let alone the 1976 Act, which would require any Church to recruit an employee whose views, opinions or beliefs—religious or otherwise—are such that he would be unable properly to fulfil the duties of the post in question.
The second specific point that I should make at this stage is to remind noble Lords that Section 37 of the 1976 Act, which remains in force, excepts from the anti-discrimination provisions of fair employment legislation those jobs whose essential nature requires them to be done by a person holding—or perhaps not holding—a particular religious belief.
We know that arguments have been advanced for widening and broadening that exception, but the exception is a narrow one—rightly so, I think—and it does not provide any Church with the scope generally to employ only staff who belong to that Church; nor, as I have said, does it force any Church to employ a person whose religious beliefs, or religion, are such that he could not do, or felt that he could not do, a particular job when the essential nature of the job—that is the crux of the argument—requires it to be done by a person of a specific religious belief.
However, the legislation—in this case, Section 37—requires that an individual's beliefs and opinions, in so far as they are related to religion or politics, are not taken into account where they have no bearing on the performance of those duties. Quite where it comes to cutting the grass around the church or cleaning the church, I am not too sure. I have a note here which states that Mammon comes first. I do not necessarily think that members of the Church or the great Church leaders are particularly fussy about where they seek financial advice concerning the considerable sums of money available to the Church. I do not believe that there is any discrimination in seeking advice.
However, posts in any Church organisation which require the undertaking of, for example, evangelising or preaching duties will fall clearly within the scope of the exemption in Section 37. Any Church which employs staff should be clear, when drawing up a job description or considering an appointment, about whether the duties of that particular post are such that the job needs to be performed by someone of a specific religious belief.
In the debate in another place, my honourable friend said:
132
"that is the current position; it has operated over the last 13 years; it relates to all churches; it applies the exemption test specifically and precisely to the job in question; and there is nothing in the new legislation which will make it more difficult to apply such a test in future".
I am pleased to let noble Lords know that, in order to give explicit guidance to the Churches in the Province on this matter, specific reference will be made to it when the new code of practice is issued later this year.
Lord Dunleath: Perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I intervene for a moment. Is he aware that the Presbyterian Church has taken legal advice about the matter and has been told that the wording of the new legislation, if taken literally by a court, could lead the Churches into considerable difficulty? I am not sure whether that point has been drawn to his notice.
Lord Lyell: If the noble Lord will be patient, I shall come to that matter in a moment, but I am grateful for his intervention.
I believe that I have so far explained why we are reluctant to widen the test and the exemption beyond the anti-discrimination provisions of the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, tried to pre-empt my remarks with a particular problem about the Presbyterian Church. Our legal advice has consistently and strongly counselled against widening Section 37 of the 1976 Act. We believe that it would be exceptionally difficult to draft any exemption that would not be open to abuse by others who are less well intentioned than the Presbyterian Church.
However, I think that the key point—and it is the point that concerned the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—is that the present exemption covers jobs, the essential nature of which is that they must be done by persons of a particular religious affiliation. I think that the onus is on any Church that employs staff to be quite clear about those aspects of its work which are very much involved with preaching and those which are not.
What the legislation requires of Church employers is clear management decisions on this point rather than the ambiguity which probably prevails at present. The fact that there have been so few difficulties with the existing legislation weakens the case for any change. I am not aware of the exact legal difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred but I shall certainly take on board the points that he made.
However, in general I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to consider that Section 37 operates in a fair and reasonable way and that the legislation that we have, especially as set out in Clause 20, should not present any difficulty to the Churches in any particular aspect. I hope that I shall not be tempted to go down the route of the imam or any of those mentioned in the more colourful examples with which I commenced my remarks. I apologise if I diverted from the central issues at the beginning of the debate but I felt that that was perhaps in accord with the tenor of the discussion on the amendment.
Lord Monson: This has been an unusually interesting debate. I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. If I interpret him correctly, he suggested that this amendment or something similar to it but perhaps better drafted would drive a large hole through the Bill. I really do not think that that is the case. I doubt whether acceptance of this amendment would affect more than 500 or 600 people in the whole of Northern Ireland.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Blease, Lord Dunleath and Lord Fitt, for their support and especially to the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Dunleath, for pointing out that political parties may also be caught by this Bill. That is something that I had not appreciated. If that is indeed the case, perhaps I may enlarge on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, who suggested that should this legislation apply in the United Kingdom the Labour Party would have to employ a substantial number of Conservatives, because they represent about 40 per cent. of the electorate, and the Conservative Party would have to employ probably 40 per cent. of Labour supporters in their central office and elsewhere. However it goes further than that, because in London at any rate both parties would also have to employ a certain number—a small number it is true—of National Front and Socialist Workers' Party supporters. That is possibly something to consider at the next stage of the Bill, if indeed it is the case that political parties in Northern Ireland are obliged to employ people who are totally opposed to their views.
I must say that I am only partially convinced by the Minister's contention that Clause 37 is working perfectly satisfactorily, bearing in mind the 1984 case which I cited in which a former Protestant won an action because he was refused employment by virtue of his atheism; and the Churches are certainly not convinced, as we heard from a number of noble Lords.
It hinges, I think, on the phrase "essential nature", which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Of course it is perfectly possible for an efficient secretary to type letters and answer telephone calls conscientiously for someone whose religious views she utterly detests. But I suggest that the employer would be extremely uncomfortable in her presence and it would hinder the smooth functioning of the office in question.
As someone who disapproves on principle—and I mentioned it at Second Reading—of social engineering measures such as this Bill, I am tempted to leave the matter as it is because the status quo will help to make a laughing stock of the Bill as a whole. However against that one should perhaps take a more responsible view and try to get this aspect of the Bill right. In either case there is no point in trying to go any further at this stage and so for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Employers to apply for registration]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("ten") and insert ("fifteen").
The noble Lord said: This is a much more low key amendment than the one that I previously moved. It is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to exclude from the scope of the Bill firms employing between 11 and 15 people. I should have liked it to have been more than a probing amendment but I fully realise that, since firms employing more than 10 people are already subject to the restrictions imposed by the 1976 Act, it is almost certainly too late to expect any reversal of policy at this stage.
I should however like to establish one point in particular that arises from the Bill. Let us suppose that in a particular region of Northern Ireland 67 per cent. of the population are Protestant and 33 per cent. are Roman Catholic; in other words the ratio is two to one. Let us also suppose that there are two firms in that region, each employing 12 people. Firm A employs nine Protestants and three Catholics, which is a slight bias in favour of Protestants. On the other hand firm B employs seven Protestants and five Catholics, which is in turn a very slight bias in favour of Catholics. Presumably the Fair Employment Commission will expect firms of that size in this area to employ as an ideal eight Protestants and four Catholics.
I should like to learn from the Minister whether the Fair Employment Commission will expect firm A automatically to replace with a Catholic the first Protestant who leaves the firm and firm B to replace with a Protestant the first Catholic who leaves, so as to retain the ideal ratio of two to one. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: One point that the noble Lord has raised with this amendment was also apparent in some of the things he said about the previous amendment. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, when replying would clarify this point. It is my understanding of this Bill that there is no question whatsoever of quotas in it. Both in what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about the previous amendment and in speaking of this one he seemed to be talking in terms of quotas. That is not the thrust of the Bill. I think that it should be made absolutely and abundantly clear at this point that we are not talking about quotas but about judging and appointing people on their merit and on their merit alone, irrespective of their religion. That is my understanding of the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm it.
Lord Lyell: At the outset I am happy to confirm exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said. There is no question of quotas. We shall have to wait until we come to goals, timetables and so on at a later stage.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I must say that in framing the legislation that the Committee has before it today and considering the impact of the registration, monitoring and review obligations of employers, we gave particular regard to the position of the smaller private sector employers. Public sector employers are

135
automatically registered under the Bill. The act of registration is required of private sector employers, but we take a progressive approach to that. On commencement employers with 25 or more employees will be required to register. Two years after commencement the threshold will reduce to 10 and what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is seeking is to lift that threshold to 15.
Above all, I do not think that in Northern Ireland there would be consensus on what constitutes a small employer. What is regarded as a small employer in one region of a country, let alone in Scotland, England and Wales, may not be so regarded in another. That may also apply to various areas in Northern Ireland. It is an important consideration, because in the Province a substantial amount of employment is provided by small private sector employers. Such employment is important, in particular in specific urban and rural localities. Given the unfortunate tendency in the Province for each community to recruit its own, and for some recruitment procedures to be relatively informal and possibly casual, we think that it is all the more important that smaller private sector employers are brought progressively within the ambit of the Bill's registration, monitoring and review procedures.
I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Bonham-Carter, will accept that all employers—every one of them—are under a duty not to discriminate either directly or indirectly. We think it appropriate that the registration and related duties should be phased in progressively to the private sector. For that reason, we decided to set the registration threshold initially at more than 25 employees and two years after commencement of the Act at more than 10 employees. This seems to be a reasonable and, I hope, a sensible approach. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will see it, as we do, as a sensible and reasonable approach and will not seek to press his amendment.
Lord Blease: Can I have a commitment from the Minister that he will listen to what I have said and come back at Report stage? He has given me no commitment whatsoever.
Lord Lyell: On which aspect?
Lord Blease: I made some very pointed remarks about the Government having representations made to them by the Churches. The letter indicated that there was still confusion in some areas about the application of the 1976 Act. I would welcome some indication from the noble Lord.
Lord Lyell: I shall certainly take that point on board. I was speaking to the amendment referring to smaller employers. We are not necessarily thinking of the Churches now. I apologise if I missed anything earlier. I shall certainly consider it. I have a note here to consider the point. The answer which I have been giving to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was on Amendment No. 19. With regard to Amendment No. 18, I shall take that consideration on board.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He stressed that there are no formal quotas in the Bill. That is true. But "goals and timetables"—the phrase in the Bill—inevitably lead to informal quotas. If a firm is found to employ more of one group and fewer of another than the religious balance pertaining in an area of the Province indicates, the firm will be heavily leant upon, for example, to advertise job vacancies only in those newspapers read largely by members of the unrepresented group, and so on, until such an informal quota is attained. It will take longer but the end result will be the same.
The Minister has had no notice of the way in which I was going to introduce this amendment. I did not expect him to reply to my question about whether a balance will be achieved. However, I still wonder whether the two firms that I mentioned, each of which employs 12 people, would not not be pressurised to achieve a total balance in employment. However, it is a matter on which the noble Lord can write to me, or inform me about at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("35") and insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. These are purely drafting amendments which make it clear that the provisions of Clause 26—to which we shall come in a moment and which deal with the power of the commission to secure further undertakings or to issue further directions in respect of goals and timetables and which were added to the Bill during Report stage in another place—extend to the public sector as well as to the private sector. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Rectification of the register]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 18, line 24, leave out ("35") and insert ("36").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Certain public authorities to be treated as employers]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("35") and insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Monitoring returns]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 20, line 5, leave out from ("return") to end of line 19 and insert ("(in this Part of this Act referred to as a "monitoring return") in a form provided by or on behalf of the Department.
(1A) A monitoring return shall contain such information about the employees of the employer as may be prescribed.
(1B) For the purpose of enabling the composition of those applying to fill advertised vacancies for employment in Northern Ireland in any concern of a person who is a public authority for the purposes of this section to be ascertained, the employer shall include in a monitoring return such information as may be prescribed.
(2) For the purpose of enabling the composition of those applying to fill advertised vacancies for employment in Northern Ireland in any other registered concern in which more than 250 employees are employed there to be ascertained, the employer shall include in a monitoring return such information as may be prescribed; and for the purposes of this subsection where, at the beginning of or at any subsequent time in any prescribed period, more than 250 employees are employed there in the concern, that condition is to be treated as satisfied for the whole or, as the case may be, the remainder of that period.").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. The purpose of Amendment No. 23 is quite simple. Basically it is designed to clarify the responsibilities of those employers who are required to monitor the composition of the persons who apply for employment.
The amendment has three effects. First, it clarifies what we mean by an applicant for employment. Secondly, it extends the duty to monitor applicants to avoid evasion. Thirdly, it changes the definition of a monitoring return.
The reason behind the basic requirement to monitor applicants is straightforward, and I shall not detain the Committee on that. Monitoring of workforce composition gives a picture of the situation in the concern at the time when the return is made. However, to obtain an impression of how the employer's practices are impacting on the local community which is what will determine the future shape of his workforce—he must look at the religious composition of those who apply for employment. In order to minimise the burdens on employers, the Government are initially placing this responsibility only on the public sector and on the largest private sector employers.
Given the importance of this provision, the Committee will appreciate the necessity of ensuring that the Bill is clear about what is expected from employers in regard to monitoring applicants. In Clause 27(2) as it stands reference is made only to "those applying for employment" and no attempt is made to define the form or circumstances constituting an application. Since monitoring duties are underpinned by criminal penalties, it is important that both employers and the commission should be clear about what constitutes an application. There is an obvious danger in ambiguity and uncertainty on this important matter.
The new form of wording introduced by Amendment No. 23 makes it clear that an applicant is a person applying to fill an advertised vacancy. By virtue of the later amendments, a fairly wide
138
definition will be given as to what constitutes an "advertised" vacancy; and I think that the Committee will appreciate the prudence of adding greater definition and wording to the Bill through this amendment.
However, the overall effect of the amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 which we shall be moving in due course and which I draw to the attention of the Committee, is to make more explicit the very important obligation on employers under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: The Minister described this as quite a simple amendment. In fact it is a worrying amendment. It is worrying because it limits the provisions for the monitoring of applications to those situations where the vacancies have been advertised. That is completely unacceptable to these Benches. Of course the monitoring of applications is invaluable in determining whether equality of opportunity is taking place and in assessing whether an employer should be making more efforts to attract applications from the under-represented community. But the amendment restricts the monitoring of applications to those posts which have been advertised.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no reference anywhere up to now that one would monitor merely the replies to advertised posts. Before I look at the definition of "advertisement" in the 1976 Act, I should mention that so often in Northern Ireland recruitment is by word of mouth. That method is severely criticised in a series of reports.
I should like to ask the Minister whether to advertise a post means also a post which is advertised by word of mouth? If it does not include a post which is advertised by word of mouth, the amendment is unacceptable. We ask the department to consider the amendment again to see either that the definition of "advertisement" is adequate or that the term "advertised" is removed from the amendment.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I greatly appreciate and applaud the importance which the Government have attached to monitoring in matters of discrimination. If monitoring is so important in Northern Ireland, as I said on Second Reading, I wish to goodness the Government would apply the same rules to race relations legislation in this country.
The point about advertising is crucial. I should like to give the Committee an example of the importance of what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was saying. Years ago when I was at the Race Relations Board we found that in the BBC there were no black secretaries. That was in the 1960s. The BBC had no difficulty recruiting secretaries and never advertised appointments. When there was a vacancy the secretaries there were simply asked, "Do you know anyone who would like this job?" The secretaries were all white; so the secretaries continued to be all white. That is why advertising is absolutely crucial. The way one recruits is at the heart of all discriminatory policy.

139
If a works or a firm has an unbalanced labour force, the first thing to discover is how it recruits—by advertising, through the hereditary system as used to apply in the motor car industry or by word of mouth.
It is essential that in this clause and elsewhere in the Bill we have a satisfactory answer to the relevant questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
Baroness Seear: I should like to add a further comment. One is not concerned only with advertising by word of mouth. Some recruitment, especially where there is unemployment, is done by people dropping in when, from the point of view of the employer, there has not been any question of a job being available. Somebody on the street can come in and ask, "Is there a job?" It could not be said that the job had been advertised in any sense. It is equally important to know what happens to such people. Word of mouth is not the only way in which people get to know of vacancies.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lyell: The question of advertising seems to have excited the Committee considerably. The Committee will see that there are further amendments—Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, I believe—with which we shall be dealing later. I wonder whether the Committee wishes me to deal with those amendments now. At the outset I can say that the definition of "advertisement" in the sense of advertising for a job is given in Section 57 of the 1976 Act. It includes every form of advertisement whether to the public or not and irrespective of whether it circulates among a small group or in the mass media, be it in newspapers, on the radio, through films or on television. Therefore, it is not a definition which will inhibit the employer in any way, either when he is seeking to attract applicants or when he is monitoring applications where he is required to do so.
The definition will be helpful both to the employer and to the commission in making it clear what constitutes an application for monitoring purposes. The Committee will see this in Section 57. We believe that that is a satisfactory definition which should be in the Bill. I hope that my explanation will assist the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Prys-Davies.
If there is any other aspect apart from advertising for a particular vacancy I shall endeavour to answer the questions. However, that is as far as I want to go concerning Amendment No. 23 and advertising.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Does the Minister get the point that because the amendment is confined to advertising in publications it provides an employer with an incentive not to advertise posts? That is what we are getting at.
I have referred to Amendment No. 52. That merely refers to the definition in the 1976 Act. That Act does not include in the definition of "advertisement" the words "advertisement by word of mouth". It is a long definition. It includes advertisements in some
140
permanent form, such as a document or a television advertisement so that one can produce evidence of it. Will the Minister consider either amending the amendment so that it will refer specifically to advertisement by word of mouth or else delete the word "advertised" from this amendment and from other amendments to which the Minister will be speaking at a later stage?
Lord Bonham-Carter: That would be an improvement, but it does not cover the point made by my noble friend Lady Seear. The point we are making here is that every person who applies for a job must be monitored. If that is not done one is not covering the field properly. This is a matter of some importance.
Lord Lyell: I apologise to the noble Baroness for not referring to her as I always do. I am so grateful when she takes part in our debates on Northern Ireland matters. She quite rightly raised an important point, but she mentioned somebody advertising by word of mouth. If they did that there would certainly be a record—
Baroness Seear: Those were not my—
Lord Lyell: If I may finish my sentence I shall certainly concede to the noble Baroness. I believe she had in mind people dropping in. There would be some tangible, or as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, defined it, some permanent record for the commission to work on. In Clause 27 we are seeking each year to prepare for monitoring for the commission. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: Years ago I was employed in this kind of game. In conditions of unemployment a great many people come to the door and say, "Any chance of a job?" The reason behind their coming may be because of word of mouth, advertisement or anything else. Often they are interviewed and employers keep their application in case there is a job. There is no question of the employer having taken the initiative to advertise or telling the workforce that there is a job. Frequently people come in in that way. One would be interested to know what happens to the application of a Catholic who goes uninvited—and that is my point—to a Protestant firm. I guess that in many cases those cards would be torn up. That is what we want to know.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the point which has been made by the noble Baroness. Surely the definition must be such that it also catches the individual who takes the initiative to go knocking at a factory door and is offered employment. That also must be monitored.
Lord Lyell: I shall return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. However, I am trying to take on board the point made by the noble Baroness. I have just received advice which may be of use to her. I stress the fact that people dropping in, looking for a casual vacancy, would make an application in a permanent form. That would be of

141
interest to the commission. In monitoring they would ask the employer, "What are you doing about applications coming in?". I cannot see how the employer can be proof against every allegation that someone came in and presented an application which was inadvertently lost. I am sure that if the commission found a deliberate policy such as the noble Baroness has hinted at—that applications had been wilfully destroyed or that there had been malpractice—it would be able to take action in that respect.
We believe that it is necessary to exclude from the duty of monitoring applicants those who have applied in the hope that there is employment but without knowledge of any such vacancy. That goes with the application. An employer can hardly write back to say that he cannot provide employment, but that he must ask the person information about himself or herself and the background, even though there is then no vacancy or any future likelihood of one.
I hope that the point made by the noble Baroness will be covered by Clause 27 and the commission will swiftly discover whether there has been deliberate malpractice by employers in respect of the type of applications to which she referred.
I am sorry that I missed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Perhaps he will remind me of it.
Lord Prys-Davies: Do we have the Minister's assurance that he will review the amendment in the light of the contributions which have been made in the debate? Do we have his assurance that he will look at it again?
Lord Lyell: I shall not give an assurance that I shall look at the question of advertising as raised by the noble Lord. We shall deal with that matter in respect of Amendment No. 50. However, I take note of what has been said. I can give no assurances tonight, but I shall take the matter on board. If the noble Lord and the noble Baroness wish to raise it at a later stage we may then be a little further forward. However, I shall give no assurances tonight.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 20, leave out lines 38 to 42 and insert ("in the case of each year at the end of the first four months of the year").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is simple and straightforward. The explanation is a little complicated but I shall attempt to be courteous as always to the Committee. It relates to the important issue of monitoring. One of the great advantages of the regular monitoring of returns is that the commission will be able to identify from that information the patterns and trends over time in composition and associated employment practices. But for it to be able to do so authoritatively, the information in respect of an individual concern needs to relate to a consistent and regularly repeated period of time, particularly as regards the monitoring of applicants. The amendment is designed to ensure that this happens.
The amendment has two effects. Its first effect is that returns become due each year on the same date, four months after registration or the anniversary of registration. That replaces a system under Clause 27(7), as drafted, where the first return is due four months after registration and the second return is due one year and two weeks after registration. Subsequent returns would have been due on the anniversary of the latter date.
The new system is thus simpler for employers and commission alike. It has a further useful effect. Those employers required to monitor job applicants will submit information on those applying for employment during certain periods. Under the Bill as drafted, it would take over three years from the date of registration before the commission would receive two returns each containing a full 12 months' data on applicants. By introducing the amendment we will shorten that lead time from over three years to less than two years. That will be a significant benefit to the commission. Employers will also find it easier to adjust to a system which from the outset seeks details of job applicants for a consistent period each year.
I shall give an example of an employer registering. Let us assume that he registers with the Fair Employment Commission on 1st March 1990. He is then required to monitor the composition of his workforce as it stood on 1st March 1990 and to submit his return to the commission before 30th June 1990—that is, before the four-month period has elapsed. This exercise has to be repeated in subsequent years.
We then turn to applications. The registered employer is required in his first year of registration to monitor the applications he receives between 1st March 1990 and 30th April 1990 and, as with his workforce return, to submit the results to the commission by 30th June 1990. Thus, for the first year of monitoring, the commission will receive returns in respect of applicants for a period of two months. In the second year of registration, the employer must submit to the commission, by 30th June 1991, a return in respect of applicants covering the months from 1st May 1990 to 30th April 1991, and this process is repeated in subsequent years.
Without this amendment, the tasks of both the employer and the commission would be considerably more complicated. The acquiring of consistent year on year information especially as regards applicants, would be delayed, and there would be three completely different periods of time in respect of which the commission would receive returns from employers in respect of their applicants.
There is clear advantage in trying to keep monitoring as simple as possible, for both employers and the commission: That is the basic purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 28 [Regulations as to monitoring]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 21, leave out lines 20 to 24.
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 34, 67 and 68. I believe that Members will be pleased if I do so. This group of amendments extends the Bill's existing provisions in respect of monitoring applications for employment.
These amendments arise directly from the fact, which I have already emphasised in my earlier comments, that monitoring applications for employment is an extremely important element in determining the extent to which an employer is providing equality of opportunity.
The Bill, as drafted, already contains provisions bearing on this important matter. At Clause 28(2)(c) we had provided that regulations might be made which would oblige any registered employer to keep such records as might be helpful to the commission in its inquiries into the composition of applicants. Amendment No. 25 removes that provision but only to make way for a new and more extensive scheme.
The basic rationale of the new clause is the same as for the provision it replaces. It ensures that, in the case of employers who monitor applicants, the commission will be able to check the validity of the employer's determinations; and in the case of employers who are not required to monitor applicants, the employer will be obliged to retain a data base to which the commission can gain access. When the commission, under Clause 31, is inquiring into an employer's review of practices, it will evidently be helpful if corroborative evidence is available to it. Under the new clause, regulations could, in effect, oblige all registered employers to retain in respect of job applicants all the information which they might use for monitoring, for determining the community background of individuals, and the community affiliation of individuals.
The regulations will specify the length of time for which such information is to be retained, but we may assume that it will be at least three years, so that it can be used in association with an employer's periodic review. It may be noted that these regulations will be made by the Department of Economic Development only after the commission has been consulted.
In addition, the new clause creates offences for failure to retain such information, and in connection with its deliberate falsification. Those offences are largely self-explanatory. I would only point out that the offence of failure to retain the prescribed information is amenable to a reasonable excuse defence which may be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. If an accident of some description occurred which destroyed the information, or which made its retention impossible either in whole or in part, the commission would obviously take account of such circumstances in considering whether to bring a prosecution. The scale of the penalties, I might also point out, is consistent with that which applies to offences in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
Lord Prys-Davies: Amendment No. 25 is connected to Amendment No. 34, as the noble Lord,
144
Lord Lyell, pointed out. It is unacceptable for the same reason that Amendment No. 23 is unacceptable; namely, because it refers to advertised vacancies. We very much welcome the emphasis on monitoring, but we fear that by insisting on the vacancies being advertised the Government are chipping away at the principle of monitoring and are therefore undermining the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: Following consultations through the usual channels, I should like to move that the Committee stage be adjourned and that the House do now resume in order to take the Transport (Scotland) Bill. The Committee stage of this Bill will continue thereafter. I hope that the Committee will agree to these extraordinary measures in view of the present transport difficulties. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Transport (Scotland) Bill
6.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, although there are no amendments tabled at this stage of the Bill, I feel that I must take this opportunity to re-emphasise the very genuine worries expressed by a number of noble Lords in Committee. Your Lordships may remember that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who is held in high esteem when he speaks in this House, was most uneasy about the possibility of asset stripping. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, was even more concerned that the Bill could be a charter for very lucrative asset stripping.
In Committee we discussed three related amendments together. I believe that the Minister satisfied us that, however much of a longstop it may be regarding one company buying into a number of different sections of the bus industry, at least the Monopolies and Mergers Commission exists to give some protection against multiple buying which would destroy the whole concept which the Government believe to be the basis of the Bill; namely, to encourage competition.
I believe that at least machinery exists to help if the bringing together of the bus industry got out of hand. However, I suggest that no such machinery exists to protect the public purse from asset strippers. Our amendments sought to have a longstop provided so that sale of assets—perhaps particularly lucrative city centre based parts of the bus industry in Scotland—would be referred to the Secretary of State to decide whether or not it was in the public interest to sell off the assets.
The Minister did not accept our amendment but, in fairness, he suggested a number of ways in which

145
the public purse could be protected. He mentioned four examples which I shall not again go through. I had hoped that he would be in a position, following our debate, to report progress on that extremely important issue. I am aware that Committee and Report stages of this Bill are much closer together than is usual. There is nothing unconstitutional about that, but we are used to having two weekends between Committee and Report stages. Therefore I can understand that perhaps the Minister and his department have not had time to examine what was said as well as they normally would.
However, the Minister made one point which we all felt could help; namely, that the Scottish transport group had appointed property advisers to give some valuation of the property so that, on a bid for it, everybody would be aware of the value of the property involved as against the transport running side of the business. The Minister said that the Secretary of State would also be appointing a property adviser.
The purpose of my intervention is to ask the Minister whether any progress has been made in this field or whether he expects any progress will be made before we reach a further stage of the Bill. I have deliberately raised the matter again because I should like it clearly in the public domain. We are concerned about the possibility of asset stripping so that, should it happen, we will be able to alert the public to it and perhaps, in the nicest possible way, gently remind the Minister of his promises.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to add a voice from these Benches in support of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I said at the previous stage that the Minister had gone some way to reassuring us, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has reiterated that point. Nevertheless, this is a serious matter and one upon which I am sure the general public wants some reassurance that public assets are not being stripped off to fill the coffers of the new undertakings, almost regardless of who their property belongs to, whether it is a management/ employee buy-out or an existing transport company.
We are asking whether the Minister can find some words that will underline what he said previously and, if possible, strengthen the safeguards that the Government believe are already built into the Bill.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has mentioned my name, I should like to repeat that it would be very good if the Minister could further reassure us. It might be possible to do so at a later stage. In the meantime, we have his words that the Government are going to take mighty good care that nothing goes wrong in the way of assets being sold to the loss of the public good.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this brief exchange. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, expressed concern, as he did at the previous stage and as two other noble Lords have done, about the disposal of properties. The possibiliy of asset stripping was uppermost in your Lordships' minds.
146
I have already assured the House in earlier proceedings that we are very much alive to the need to avoid substantial profits being made on re-sales of property after privatisation. Reference was made at the last stage of the Bill to the case of the sale of the Hampshire Bus Company to Stagecoach and the very large profit which was made by Stagecoach when it resold the Southampton bus station. I understand that such problems arose only rarely in the National Bus Company privatisation, but I assure noble Lords that we are well aware that there are no grounds for complacency in this matter. We have learned from the NBC's experience. We shall be examining, with the Scottish Transport Group, the best arrangements for the disposal of all property held by the Scottish Bus Group.
In this connection the Scottish Transport Group's property advisers—Ryden's—is currently examining the properties concerned to establish valuations and to identify those properties where there may be significant development value in an alternative use which would be higher than the value in their current bus operational use. It will also be advising on how particular properties should be dealt with at the time of sale. My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland will also be appointing property advisers to advise him on the recommendations made with regard to the proposed treatment of properties by the STG and its advisers. The purpose of this is to ensure that all aspects of property disposals are thoroughly examined.
I cannot anticipate the details or this advice on properties, but there are clearly a number of city centre properties which will require particularly careful consideration because of their potential development value. Properties held by subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group which fall into this category include the bus depots on New Street, Edinburgh, and at Motherwell and Greenock. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would like to hear about St Andrew's Square bus station, Edinburgh, and Buchanan bus station in Glasgow which are owned centrally by the Scottish Transport Group; in the latter case on land held on a long lease from Glasgow District Council. These two sites are clearly likely to have substantial development value and special arrangements will be necessary with regard to their disposal.
I remind the House that there are a number of options, to which I referred at an earlier stage, for dealing with property disposals so as to obtain satisfactory sale proceeds and avoid asset stripping. I will not repeat those options. They are on the record and clearly described. Decisions will be made on the best arrangements for the disposal of properties before companies are offered for sale. Where special treatment is to be given to particular properties which are to be included in the sale of a company, the details will be set out in the documents relating to the offer for sale of the company. All prospective purchasers will thus be bidding for a company on the same basis. Those properties which are to be sold on their own will be the subject of separate offers for sale. Alternatively, it may be appropriate for some properties to be included as part of a portfolio of properties to be sold as such.

147
No detailed decisions have yet been made on these matters pending the advice of the STG's and the Secretary of State's property advisers, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that this will not take place before the passage of the Bill through this Chamber. The general arrangements regarding the disposal of properties will be set out in the statutory disposal programme. The detailed arrangements regarding particular properties will, as I have said, be set out at the time companies are offered for sale. I have explained the arrangements regarding properties. The detailed arrangements will be decided in the light of the disposal programme made after the legislation is enacted.
As a final word of comfort to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, no disposals can take place without the consent of the Secretary of State. This will apply to properties, as with other assets, of the bus companies. I take very seriously the points made by all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. It will be seen from our response that we are very alive to the dangers which can transpire if asset stripping, as it has come to be known, takes place.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his reassuring statement. The four points which, for reasons of time, he decided not to reiterate give us as much reassurance as we could expect, given our general disagreement over the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
6.18 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 28.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 21, line 30, leave out from ("information") to ("for") in line 31 and insert ("to which section 29(1)(a) or (b) of this Act applies to be retained by the employer").
The noble Lord said: I also speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Amendment No. 26 arises from the provisions made for use of residuary monitoring methods involving a range of information other than that provided by direct or indirect questions.
Under Clause 28, for the purposes of monitoring either the workforce or applicants an employer may make use of a range of information which will be specified in regulations. The nature and extent of that information will be addressed in a later amendment. To understand Amendment No. 26 we need only be aware that a wide range of information will be available for an employer for the purpose of monitoring. The purpose of Amendment No. 26 is to allow regulations which could oblige an employer to retain such information for a prescribed period of time. Under Clause 31 the commission is empowered to inquire into the periodic reviews and practices which will be undertaken by an employer into his most important personnel procedures. That includes monitoring.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate that the employer should be obliged, if required, to retain all the information on which his review and his monitoring returns are based. This will enable the commission to assess the accuracy of the return and to check the determination reached by the employer as the result of his review. The existing wording of Clause 28(2)(e) was framed when the monitoring provision made by the Bill did not expressly cover use of the residuary method and the information necessary for it. Amendment No. 26 brings the monitoring requirements more fully into line with the new provision and I recommend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 21, line 39, leave out ("and the form of the returns").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are uneasy about Amendment No. 27 because it will remove the power of the department to fix by regulation the form in which the monitoring returns should be made. The Minister rushed through Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 and prepared to go on to Amendment No. 27. He may say that this amendment is merely of a technical nature, but it is far more important than that. If the department is not entitled to fix by regulation the form in which the returns are to be made then we on these Benches believe that opens the way for wrecking tactics.
Although the employers will still be required to submit prescribed information they will not have to submit it in a standard form. It is essential for the commission that all the employers, wherever they are in Northern Ireland, should be submitting their returns in a standard form. Otherwise it will be that much more difficult for the commission to compile and interpret the statistics and to decide whether or not we are comparing like with like.
In another area this matter has been the subject of criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who has been pressing the department in certain areas to ensure that the returns are in a standardised form. I refer the Minister to the report. From these Benches we cannot go along with this amendment. We ask the Minister and his department to have a very careful look at it in the light of the report from the Comptroller and Auditor General. I cannot recall precisely the date of the report, but it has been referred to once before in the debate.
Lord Bonham-Carter: It seems to me that this is not a matter of principle but of practice. It is much simpler and more efficient if we follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. If a form is universally used it will be more useful and more easily monitored.
Lord Lyell: I ask the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to look at Amendment No. 23 referred to earlier. He will see that the monitoring return will be taken on a form to be provided by the department. Amendment

149
No. 23(1A) gives a broad definition of the form that will be used by the department. The information in that form and included in the return will be prescribed by regulations that we shall see fairly soon once the Bill leaves this Chamber and possibly another place. I have little more to say as regards Amendment No. 27. I shall take on board the points raised by the noble Lord concerning the Comptroller and Auditor General, but I still believe that this amendment meets the needs of monitoring and the form.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I point out that the significance of this particular amendment is that it leaves out the words "form of the returns".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 21, line 44, leave out ("in the prescribed form") and insert ("does not contain the prescribed information").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall not detain the Committee. The criticism that we have levelled at the previous amendment applies with equal force to this one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 22, line 5, leave out paragraph (h).
The noble Lord said: The CBI of Northern Ireland, who advised me on these matters, questioned whether Clause 28(1)(h) should be part of the Bill. It also questioned whether subsection (3)(a)(i) of that clause should be worded as it is. Accordingly, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 29 and 32, with which are grouped Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blease.
The CBI has advised me that the question of classifying employees by schools is getting out of hand. The original idea was to classify people by the religious affiliation implied by their primary schools. Now it seems that every school is to be classified to the dismay of some mixed secondary schools and integrated schools. Surely the whole schools' exercise is unnecessary in view of the other requirements of Clause 28. Accordingly, I suggest that subsection (2)(h) should be left out, and also that my Amendment No. 32 should be agreed to. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I have to advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
Lord Blease: I believe that we should stop for a moment and examine what we are attempting to do here. We are dealing with Clause 28 which states,
"The Department shall, by regulations made after consultation with the Commission, make provision for the purposes of section 27 of this Act. The regulations may …".
150
A fair amount of this Bill is dependent on regulations being compiled, and also on the issue of a code of practice. I believe that much requires to be cleared up in the text of the Bill, if not by amendment then certainly by a considerable amount of explanation. My amendment deals particularly with the issue of collecting information from schools as regards applications for employment and how schools are listed on a document issued by the Northern Ireland department.
We have been waiting for this legislation for a number of years, and although the Committee will be detained for a certain time we should spend a few minutes contemplating what we are really doing, which might help to clear the air so far as Northern Ireland is concerned.
I shall quote from the Notes on Clauses. The notes on Clause 28 refer to paragraph (h). The notes state:
"Paragraph (h) allows the making of regulations which would require the commission to maintain a list of every school in Northern Ireland for the purposes of monitoring and to publish the list from time to time. The existing list"—
to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred—
"was published by the department in consultation with the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. The schools' list is intended as a reference document by which employers can discover whether for purposes of monitoring the school attended by an employee is categorised as Protestant or Roman Catholic or is unclassified."
The list sets out categories "P", "RC" and "unclassified".
Because most schools in Northern Ireland are attended mainly by Protestant or Catholic pupils the classification of the school can provide a sufficiently accurate guide to the community to which each employee should be treated as belonging. Since it is envisaged that monitoring exercises may be carried out by reference to different classes of schools—primary, secondary or according to the type of management—the regulations may also allow for the possibility of lists being published in respect of any particular class of school specified by the department.
That list has been sent to employers. It is a subjective list. It has been criticised by many schools and employers as it contains references to Protestant and Roman Catholic schools. They refute the subjective classification that pupils in such schools are either mainly Catholic or mainly Protestant. Some schools have a mixture of religious affiliations. The purpose of my amendments—Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33—is to ensure that only a classification which is known to the Department of Education, is listed by the Department of Education and which is scrutinised by auditors and by the Controller and Auditor General and others is used. It is a classification which schools themselves use. If Amendment Nos. 30 and 31 were accepted the Bill would read:
"(h) require the Commission to maintain for general guidance, a list of each school in Northern Ireland specified by the Department of Education—Northern Ireland as controlled, maintained or grant-aided, for the purposes of monitoring and to review and publish the list from time to time".

151
If Amendment No. 33 were accepted the Bill would read:
"(a) where an applicant—
(i) has stated that he attended a particular primary school, being a school named in a list maintained by virtue of subsection (2)(h) above as a school attended mainly by members of a particular community".
I hope that this will make the record appear reasonable to the people of Northern Ireland who are to examine the list. It will be not an arbitrary list of schools drawn up by civil servants, draftsmen or by others in consultation with the Department of Education. The department has only three categories listed in its returns for educational purposes. That is unfair to parents who attempt to send their children to schools that cater for all and other denominations.
The Government have given considerable support to the setting up of integrated schools. I applaud that, as many noble Lords have done. I applaud them on this occasion for the support that has been given by the department and the Minister. Many schools cater for children of all religious denominations. However, in this respect the Bill is going down a road contrary to the declared object of promoting integration, understanding and harmony in the community. In this clause the Government are erecting a barrier to understanding and they are countering the objective of promoting integration, understanding and the elimination of discrimination in employment. My amendments seek to produce a better understanding of the educational needs of Northern Ireland.
Lord Prys-Davies: We have before us five amendments. Amendments Nos. 29 and 32 stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33 stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Blease. I shall deal with them in reverse order.
I have profound respect for my noble friend Lord Blease. He has served the people of Northern Ireland to the very best of his ability over many years. Those of us who are constantly on our feet in Northern Ireland debates always listen to him with great respect. I am pleased to be able to go along entirely with Amendment No. 31. It is a helpful amendment. It provides for the department to review the list of schools. That is perfectly acceptable. Oddly enough, it had not struck the civil servants or our colleagues in another place that there was a need to review the list from time to time. I am pleased to give our support to Amendment No. 31.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to modify the school's method of monitoring. It differs from the Bill in more than one respect. First, it attempts to create a less rigid classification system. The Bill refers to employers looking to the list for general guidance. However, I should have thought that experience since 1976 shows that we need more than general guidance. We need criteria which people will understand and regard as having significance. Therefore, I am uneasy about the opening words of the amendment; namely, "for general guidance". My noble friend's amendment goes on to provide for schools to be identified not by their religious status
152
but by the nature of their relationship with the Department of Education. Clearly the categories suggested are to enable an employer to draw an inference because a school is a controlled school, a maintained school or a grant-aided school. However, bearing in mind the difficulties facing employers and the commission, we should have thought that direct guidance should be available to them. I believe that the clause as it stands gives that direct guidance. With the amendment we are in a grey area: this school is maintained; this school is controlled; this school is grant aided. What inference do we draw from that classification?
I believe that the amendment would include integrated schools. I know how my noble friend Lord Blease has been fully in support of such schools. We agree with him. However, perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that it would be very surprising indeed if the published list did not take account of integrated education. I am sure that it would, because that is a growth area in Nothern Ireland and of particular significance in the context of the Bill.
Therefore, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Blease that the major objection which we would have to Amendment No. 30—and I say this most kindly—is its imprecise use of language. I believe that the present version of the Bill provides a clear form of words and would leave the operation of this clause less open to challenge in the courts. We are in a difficult and sensitive area. We do not want to give people who are ill-disposed towards this legislation the opportunity to challenge the decision of the commission in the courts.
I turn now to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. We are glad to see that the noble Lord is now in his place. Our worry about his proposal is that this single amendment knocks out one of the principal methods of monitoring. If we are knocking out a basic method of monitoring, will that not make monitoring that much more difficult? We must look to the day when employers and the commission are doing their best to put this legislation into practice. We need to give them guidance and feed them guidelines. To knock out this particular guideline would, in my view, weaken the Bill considerably.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps I may start by replying to my noble friend Lord Mottistone and then, while I am still on my feet, I shall include in my remarks replies to some of the relevant arguments raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I mean no discourtesy to either noble Lord, but I think it would be for the pleasure and the benefit of Members of the Committee if I were to reply to this series of amendments in the form of an omnibus reply. I think it will also be for the convenience of the Committee if I do so.
So far as concerns my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I appreciate that there are aspects of monitoring which some people may find distasteful. I appreciate and understand the reluctance of such people to see the place of a person's education used as a "proxy" for perceived religious affiliation.

153
However, I must urge the Committee to consider our view which is that these amendments would strike at one of the more successful methods of monitoring currently in use in the Province; namely, the attribution of perceived religious affiliation —not, I carefully draw the distinction, actual religious belief—on the basis of the name and address of the school attended. This method of monitoring is referred to in our Guide to Effective Practice as the indirect method, and it is one of the principal monitoring methods envisaged in the Bill.
First and foremost, we must consider the relative popularity and widespread use of the indirect method in both public and large private sector organisations. Secondly, the fact is that its relative popularity reflects the major advantage of this monitoring method. It is based on objective and factual information which can be checked. It is derived from the name and address of the school attended and involves classification by the employer on the basis of a list drawn up and supplied to him. Moreover, as I emphasised, it records not actual religious belief but perceived religious affiliation. The latter, in Northern Ireland terms, is an indication of community affiliation.
I appreciate, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, the integrated schools' movement and its value. I also appreciate how it is growing. I am sure that we wish it well; indeed, the Government are doing everything they can to encourage, support and stimulate the growth of integrated education. But the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will, above all, I believe, be realistic about this. It will be a long time before the educational system in the Province ceases to be divided, schools for the most part being attended mainly, but not exclusively, by one side of the community or another.
While that situation continues, there is every argument for maintaining the use of the indirect method, which we have before us, as a principal method of monitoring. Monitoring returns will be submitted to the commission. That will be the locus for advice and guidance on all practical matters relating to monitoring. Therefore it is essential that the commission should have the responsibility to maintain the key schools list. Obviously the regulations may require the commission to publish the list from time to time. In doing so, the commission will be able to reflect any changes in the composition and nature of certain schools that may have taken place in the meantime. I hope that my noble friend will accept that the Bill as drafted provides the best method of monitoring in this area.
Amendment No. 31, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, does not necessarily meet the objectives for which he strives. If the commission is to be required to publish the list from time to time, it will be implicit that it is reviewed and altered. In any event, Clause 28(2)(h) is only an enabling power, popular or unpopular as it may be, and certainly the detail can and will be covered by regulation.
Therefore I ask my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, not to press this series of
154
amendments. I say that because we believe that the concerns which they have both raised are put at rest and are certainly covered in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Kilbracken: Before my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, speak again, perhaps I may be allowed to voice my objection to the use of the word "community" to which the Minister referred when speaking to the last amendment. The word "community" is contained in Clause 28(3).
The noble Lord said that in Northern Ireland the words "community" and "religion" were practically interchangeable terms. That is simply not the case. The noble Lord has probably visited the Short Strand area of Belfast, as I have. It is a 98 per cent. Catholic and strongly Nationalist area. But, in that community there are Protestants. I do not suppose that they get into double figures, but there are Protestants. I remember that one of them had a fish and chip shop which was very popular; all his customers are Catholics; they go along to the chippie's. That man is most certainly a member of the community in Short Strand. It is the same all over Ireland.
I suggest to the Committee that by using the word "community" in the Bill it is proposed that members of a religious minority living somewhere like Short Strand, or in some small town or village anywhere, are not members of the same community but of a different community. I think that that is deplorable. If the Bill means "religion" then that is what it should say.
Lord Lyell: I meant no disparagement of the friends of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in Short Strand, let alone anywhere else. But we are using a generally accepted term in the context of monitoring the workforce in Northern Ireland. That is the thrust of the Bill which we were discussing at an earlier stage and today—equality of opportunity in employment for everybody in Northern Ireland.
However the noble Lord knows even better than I do that Northern Ireland is a divided society. I hope that we shall not have to define that. The main thrust of the Bill, let alone the monitoring under Clause 28, is designed to see that equality of opportunity is paramount as far as is possible in employment. We mean nothing defamatory or in any way disparaging in the term "community". It is a valid method whereby employers can monitor the composition of their workforce. That is all that the word "community" means.
Lord Kilbracken: I am not suggesting that the Minister is in any way disparaging any people in the community. I am saying that he is calling them different communities. I say that they are members of the same community and should be recognised as being members of the same community. There is no question of disparagement about it. To use the word "community" in that sense is most unfortunate.
Lord Mottistone: I am speaking now to Amendment No. 29. I wish to thank my noble friend for his remarks. Naturally I shall want to read them with great care to see whether his argument satisfies my advisers and myself. I am sorry that I missed the

155
earlier amendments; I warned everybody about the situation, including my noble friend the Minister. I am surprised since I wrote to my noble friend about it last week. I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, was not allowed to move my amendments for me; he himself had told the Public Bill Office about it. However, the amendments have gone by default. All I am saying to the Committee is that I may well have to come back to them on Report. I say this very noisily so that perhaps the Government Chief Whip may hear and be prepared to allow a little more time on Report than he might otherwise think necessary because I shall have to make up for lost ground.
I am sorry if my noble friend the Minister has not received my letter, I sent him my briefs for all the amendments in order that he might give me a reasoned reply. If he has not received them, then I hope he will take his advisers to task for not passing them on to him. The situation being what it is, I shall read the debate carefully. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lyell: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment perhaps I may convey to him my apologies. I received some very kind communications from him but I am not aware that I obtained any information. My noble friend beside me on the Front Bench will confirm, as I understand it, that we did not receive any indication that my noble friend would not be here to move his amendments earlier on.
I shall make inquiries and if I should have received a separate communication, certainly I shall apologise to my noble friend. However when I came into the Chamber I understood that my noble friend would move his amendments. I made a comment about him in his absence and he may care to read it in Hansard. It was of a jocular nature and perhaps we might take it up on another occasion. That was purely out of courtesy. I received one communication from my noble friend for which I am grateful, but I do not recall receiving information from him that he would not be present to move his amendments.
Lord Mottistone: The latter point was in the covering letter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Blease Lord Blease moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 22, line 5, leave out from ("maintain") to ("for") in line 7 and insert ("for general guidance, a list of each school in Northern Ireland specified by the Department of Education—Northern Ireland as controlled, maintained or grant-aided").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may reply shortly to the Minister's remarks concerning the earlier incident when I was reprimanded for moving the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I have received an apology from the Government Front Bench stating that I was right and they were wrong. However, that has now gone the way of other matters and will be forgotten about.
I wish to thank the Minister for the manner in which he replied to these three amendments and particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench for
156
his remarks. I always listen to his points of view with interest and great respect. I still maintain that the list is very arbitrary and that the evidence is that teachers were offended, parents were offended and employers were offended by the list and the way in which it was presented.
The Minister has indicated that the list will contain some qualification that it is set out in terms of perceived religion, if it should be widely publicised, not only to the employers, in a hole and corner method, but also to the schools concerned which have been identified on the list and the teachers concerned who are looking after the children. I shall read what the Minister has said and with those remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Monitoring applicants
.—(1) The Department may, by regulations made after consultation with the Commission, provide that the employer shall, for the purpose of enabling the composition of those applying to fill advertised vacancies for employment in any registered concern in Northern Ireland to be ascertained (whether or not section 27 (1B) or (2) of this Act has effect in respect of their applications), seek to obtain such information about them as may be prescribed.
(2) The regulations may—

(a) require information to which section 29(1)(a) of this Act applies to be retained by the employer for such period as may be prescribed,

(b) provide that a person who—

(i) without reasonable excuse fails to comply with such a requirement, or

(ii) knowingly gives any false information to another who is seeking to obtain information in pursuance of the regulations, or

(iii) knowingly includes any false information in any records kept in pursuance of the regulations,

is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and

(c) make different provision for different cases.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Confidentiality of monitoring information]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 22, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert ("This.section applies—

(a) to information about a person employed or applying for employment in a concern which might be used if any of the methods prescribed by regulations under section 28 of this Act for determining the community to which a person is to be treated as belonging for the purposes of monitoring were applied,

(b) to information as to the community to which a person employed or applying for employment in a concern is to be treated as belonging for those purposes, and

(c) to any other information from which that community might be deduced.

157
(1A) If a person discloses any information which—

(a) he holds or has held in his capacity as an employee in a concern or as the employer, and

(b) is information to which this section applies or has applied").

The noble Lord said: It might be convenient to the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 together. These two amendments in no way weaken the provisions of the Bill governing the confidentiality of information which might be used for monitoring purposes. That is a particularly important point in the context of monitoring and I wish to emphasise it at the outset.
The disclosure of any information from which the perceived religious affiliation of an identifiable individual might be determined remains an offence. But the introduction into the Bill at Report stage in another place of the provision permitting in certain circumstances the use of the residuary method of monitoring needed a recasting of the clause before us, Clause 29.
Perhaps we may briefly remind ourselves that Clause 28 allows an employer who has attempted unsuccessfully to establish the religious affiliation of an employee or an applicant by means of one of the principal methods—in other words, the schools question or the direct question—to turn to the residuary method, the method whereby he may use other information known to him about the employee or applicant to determine from which community he comes.
Such information might be, if we take one example, a home address, knowledge by indirect methods of the church attended, identity of referees or even knowledge of membership of a particular sports or social club. Members of the Committee will be aware that such information within Northern Ireland can often be used to determine pretty accurately a person's background in the community. Such information may be and in some cases is likely to be common knowledge. The fact that an employee or applicant is a prominent member of a particular church, plays a particular form of sport or engages in a particular form of social activity may well be common knowledge and not confidential. If that is so, it is important to provide a defence for anyone charged with the disclosure of such information.
Amendment No. 35 provides a defence for anyone, whether employer or employee, charged with the offence of disclosure of information from which may be deduced the community to which a person is treated as belonging for the purpose of monitoring, on the grounds that he possessed that information otherwise than in his capacity as employer or employee. In other words, it is a defence to show that such information was derived other than through the monitoring process.
I hope the Committee will find this a sensible and reasonable amendment, given the nature of the information that could be used in the residuary method of monitoring. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 36.
Lord Mottistone: I did not hear my noble friend speak to Amendment No. 36, though I find it grouped with Amendments Nos. 35 and 37. Will he be taking that point up later?
Lord Lyell: I said I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 35 and 37. I should not wish to speak to Amendment No. 36 without having heard my noble friend move it. I think the matter would be in the hands of the Committee. I suspect the Committee would wish to hear exactly what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Mottistone: As my amendment cannot be called if the amendment of my noble friend is agreed to, I think it is only right that it should be in this group. I expected to hear something about it.
I am advised that the FEA, which currently precedes the commission, generally tells employers with whom it becomes involved that one can tell a person's religion by his or her names and by his or her address. I therefore suggest that the existing Clause 29(1)(b) is too tightly drawn. With Amendment No. 36, I seek to remove from that clause the words:
"or information held by the employer from which that fact may be deduced".
I believe it is going too far to include that sentence. Clause 29(1) is to be replaced by the provision in Amendment No. 35, but I am sorry to see that the part I want to see removed reappears as paragraph (c) of the proposed new subsection (1). So, clearly, my noble friend did not take the point in the notes I gave him on this subject. I should be most grateful if he will explain why he thinks that his proposed paragraph (c) should continue to be in the Bill.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, with the very greatest respect, that it really is not the case that it is possible to tell somebody's religion either by their name or by their address. Of course, in general terms Catholics do tend to have Irish or Celtic names, but that is very far from being a rule. One finds the most ardent Catholics, the most ardent Nationalists, with names like Nixon or Young or Walker, simply because at some stage their grandfather or their grandmother married a Catholic. They may have been brought up as Catholics but they still have completely English names. That is the position so far as the names are concerned.
Regarding the address, there are ghettos in Northern Ireland and it is most regrettable that that should be so. But in all the towns and cities living in a particular street is no indication whatsoever of one's religious faith.
Lord Mottistone: I agree with what the noble Lord says, having been many times to Northern Ireland myself. However, the FEA is always bossing

159
employers. If the noble Lord had been present on Second Reading he would have heard that the main burden of the grumble of the CBI in Northern Ireland in relation to this Bill, which it otherwise supports, is that its members are treated as second-rate employers compared with the public sector employers when they would like to be treated as partners. The FEA appears to say that one can tell a person's religion by his name. This provision is a protest against that kind of bossiness, rather than against the facts of life.
Lord Blease: I shall speak to Amendment No. 37, with particular reference to Clause 29 which concerns the confidentiality of monitoring information. I should be grateful if the Minister will assure me that the Bill imposes some duty upon employers as regards the confidentiality of this monitoring information. My view is that there is a lack of responsibility on employers to maintain a register of all the persons employed by them, and as regards dealing with the information compiled and its transmission. The situation is left open to the excuse that the liability for someone obtaining employment through some under-the-counter or backdoor method should be on the employer. Only certain members of the staff or personnel involved should have access to the records and to the correspondence that is required by this part of the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider the views I am expressing. I hope he can help me by indicating how this matter will be regulated as regards the law and the courts, and as regards the obligations to employees in particular instances.
Lord Lyell: I shall first try to answer the point of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I was grateful for the communication he sent to me but, as he will have heard, I expected him to present his own amendment as it is in his name. He has made his case, but I think his amendment would certainly weaken what we see as the important confidentiality provisions in the Bill relating to the information from which the classification of individuals for monitoring purposes is derived.
In his comments at an earlier stage of the Bill, my noble friend stated that private sector employers should not feel they were being singled out. If my noble friend looks at the Second Reading debate on the Bill, he will find that both public and private sector employers are treated on an equal footing in all parts of the Bill, including monitoring.
In taking account of the confidentiality provisions, especially of Clause 29, we think the amendment of my noble friend would not be consistent with the provisions in our amendment on Clause 29, and, specifically, the substitution of new paragraph (c) into subsection (1). That was what my noble friend was particularly concerned with.
The introduction of what we call the residuary method—I think that is a lot more refined than what my noble friend has suggested—requires a recasting of Clause 29. The residuary method can be used as a fall-back option when the principal methods have failed to provide the necessary information. It can involve, but does not have to, the use of such
160
information as home address, knowledge of the church attended, the identity of referees, or even knowledge of membership of a particular sports or social club.
We accept that that may well be common knowledge. So it is important, while maintaining the confidentiality of monitoring returns, to provide a defence for an employer who reveals that overt information. That defence is provided in our own amendment to Clause 29, and it is based on the grounds that, far from bossing anyone around, the employer came into possession of that information otherwise than in his capacity as employer. In other words, it will be a defence to show that such information was derived other than through the monitoring process; but if the information is obtained in confidence, then it is treated as confidential.
The provision of this defence is an important safeguard for employers. We believe that it is necessary, equitable and sensible. The divulging of such information in certain circumstances could conceivably place certain individuals at risk. The possibility of such information being divulged could compromise the effectiveness of the monitoring exercise.
I emphasise that voluntary monitoring is already under way throughout both the public and private sectors in Northern Ireland. At an earlier stage I referred to over 450 separate organisations. I imagine that the majority are within the organisation which has advised my noble friend. They are conducting voluntary monitoring without, it seems, any problems that cannot already be resolved swiftly and effectively.
Our success in stimulating voluntary monitoring in anticipation of the statutory obligation introduced by the Bill is due in no small measure to the emphasis placed on confidentiality in the Guide to Effective Practice, and the respect which employers have shown for that confidentiality in relation to the information that they have obtained.
I understood the noble Lord, Lord Blease, to be concerned about confidentiality and how the information would be treated. I think that he will see, particularly in relation to Amendments Nos. 35 and 37, that we treat the question of confidentiality between employer and employee particularly seriously. The amendments provide what we believe is a valuable defence to employers if an employee believes that the employer has obtained information as a result of a breach of confidence.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 35 is necessary because information from which a person's community can be deduced may not be known at the workplace although it is common knowledge elsewhere. The defence provided by Amendment No. 37 will not remove an employer's obligation to silence if the fact is raised by others.
I hope that that explanation has been of some help to my noble friend. I stress once again that we have no intention of bullying. In this aspect the private sector is treated as a very valuable partner with the public sector.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his comments.
I shall read them with care.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 23, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert ("It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that he also obtained the information otherwise than in his capacity as an employee in the concern or the employer.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Periodic reviews by employers]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 23, line 36, leave out from ("made") to end of line 41 and insert ("towards fair participation by members of the community concerned—

(a) in employment in the concern in Northern Ireland or among those whose employment in the concern there begins after the determination, or

(b) among applicants to fill advertised vacancies for employment in the concern there.").

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 38 I speak also to Amendment No. 48. These two amendments are purely drafting amendments. They ensure consistency of expression in Clauses 30 and 35 with the definition of affirmative action which is given in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has introduced two major amendments and has described them as merely drafting amendments. They are far more important than drafting amendments. Amendment No. 38, I regret to say, is another example of the Government chipping away at and eroding the existing provision in the Bill relating to the purpose of periodic reviews by employers to determine what progress has been made towards providing equality of opportunity. Far from being just a technical amendment, the amendment has worrying implications for the scope of affirmative action and of the reviews.
The amendment is unacceptable for two reasons. We have already come across this form of wording earlier in Committee. The first reason is the restriction of the review to advertised vacancies. That is to be found in paragraph (b). We have rehearsed the argument and I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee in repeating it. However, it is equally valid and applies with equal force to this amendment.
The second objection is that Clause 30(3)(b) is weakened by the substitution of the words "fair participation" for the word "composition". The composition of a workforce is something that can be measured and progress towards equality of opportunity can be measured in terms of the correspondence between the religious composition of the workforce and that of the available pool of labour. Fair participation—the term that is now
162
being introduced—is a much more nebulous term. The term "fair", unless I have missed it, is left undefined in the Bill. So the concept of fair participation has no meaning in the Bill. It has no meaning except that given to it by a tribunal or a court. As a result, it has not been possible to say what any section of the Bill containing the concept means.
From our point of view this is an unsatisfactory position. We should be grateful if the Minister would have another look at the amendment in the light of the criticism which we have aimed at it.
Lord Lyell: I shall certainly take on board the points made by the noble Lord. However, I have nothing more to say this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 24, line 5, after ("promotion") insert ("or redundancy").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that redundancy policies too are considered in terms of equality of opportunity. Redundancy policy can affect the structure of a firm's workforce just as much as its:'ecruitment or promotion policy. The point is particularly applicable if the employer uses affirmative action programmes in order to rectify imbalances in the workforce but is subsequently forced to make employees redundant and bases his redundancy policy on the principle of "last in, first out": his attempt over the preceding years at securing equality of opportunity may be eroded and in some cases negated.
We mentioned that problem in the Second Reading debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, told the House that the Government were considering an amendment in the area of redundancy to avoid any erosion of gains towards fair participation through redundancy practices. I therefore very much hope that the Government have now given the matter further consideration and that this amendment, or an amendment along these lines, will be acceptable to them.
Lord Hylton: As I understand it, when redundancies occur, trade unions in most parts of the world—certainly in England—have generally adopted the principle of "first in, last out". We know that over the last 20 years there have been a sad number of redundancies in Northern Ireland. I should like to know whether that principle has been applied until now and whether in future the Irish trade unions operating in Northern. Ireland will abandon it in favour of conducting redundancies in such a way as to balance the composition of the workforce.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps I may deal briefly with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord. Hylton, in a moment. When I was first instructed, I had good news for noble Lords, in that I was able to accept the amendment in principle. Unfortunately, I cannot do so tonight, but we propose to table an amendment at a later stage—at the next stage, I hope—for your

163
Lordships' consideration. That amendment will address the issue of redundancy.
It may help the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, if I briefly explain that in so doing we shall follow through the reasons underlying our amendment to Clause 52 which we shall consider later. We propose to afford protection against direct and indirect discrimination where a redundancy practice is followed by an employer, first, in pursuance of affirmative action, secondly, in accordance with agreed procedure—that will be of relevance to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—and, thirdly, where the practice does not involve the application of any condition or requirement framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion.
If those three criteria are met—namely, a redundancy scheme as part of affirmative action, a scheme that is concluded on the basis of an agreed procedure and a scheme that does not involve the application of any condition or requirement framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion—the scheme is protected from both direct and indirect discrimination, even if the proportion of employees of one community is smaller than that of another.
The purpose of our amendment will be to ensure that the progress made towards fair participation is not compromised by redundancy schemes which, for example, might result in those most recently recruited being selected first for redundancy. That is the reverse of the position that concerned the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which I would call the "last in, first out" position. We believe that our amendment will give employers the flexibility to agree other redundancy arragements with their trade unions in order to safeguard progress which has been hard won towards fairer participation in employment by an under-represented group.
That is all that I wish to say on the subject this evening. I hope that it will be of some help to your Lordships. I am sorry that I could not accept the amendment tonight, but we shall certainly produce our own amendment at, I hope, the next stage.
Lord Prys-Davies: The Minister has been very helpful and we look forward with keen anticipation to the amendment to be tabled by the Government before we arrive at the next stage of the proceedings. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Enquiries by the Commission]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 24, line 7, at beginning insert ("The Commission may from time to time require the employer to give the Commission such information held by the employer, being information to which section 29(1)(a) or (b) of this Act applies, as the Commission may specify; but an employer who has been required on any date to give any information under this subsection shall not be required to do so again before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with that date.
(1A)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 47.
These amendments have the effect of extending the powers of the commission to require the disclosure of information by the employer. The existing power hinged on the employer's having submitted a monitoring return, and extended only to information supplementing that given in the return. We have released the commission from both those constraints. In that way the amendment provides that the commission can obtain from the employer any of the information that he might use for monitoring. For example, where under the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 34 which we discussed earlier an employer who is not required to monitor applicants holds information on job applicants, the commission will be able to gain access to that database, which will be particularly important.
The second effect of Amendment No. 40 is that the commission can exercise its powers whether or not a monitoring return has been submitted under Clause 27. That is to avoid an employer who has neglected to submit a return attempting to avoid disclosing information to the commission on the legalistic point that, under the Bill as drafted, its powers came into play only following the submission of a monitoring return.
However, the commission's powers of inquiry are not totally unrestricted because, in common with its rights of inquiry conveyed by other provisions in the Bill—for example, in Clause 31(6), which noble Lords will find at the bottom of the page, and in Clause 34(5)—we have restricted it to six monthly intervals. While it is right for the commission to have extensive powers to inquire into an employer's discharging of his obligations, it seems fair to provide that the employer is not needlessly inconvenienced thereby. If the commission thinks that further action is required, powers for full investigation under Clause 11 will still be available. We believe that the amendments enhance the commission's powers in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are extremely worried about the last line of Amendment No. 40. The amendment restricts the right of the commission to apply for information for a second time within six months of its original application. That part of the amendment therefore restricts the ability of the employment commission to require employers to supply information. We believe that that is another example of the Government attempting to restrict the role of the commission and as such is unacceptable.
Under the Bill as drafted, after a monitoring return has been received, the Government may require the employer to produce further information. For example, the commission could ask the employer for a breakdown of the composition of the workforce by grade. The commission could then go back and seek further details, perhaps to verify or clarify the information in the original return.
Once the initial request has been made, this amendment will prevent the commission from asking for supplementary information for a further six months. We all know of cases in which the respondent produces information but the plaintiff or the claimant has to go back for further and better

165
particulars of that information. This amendment would prevent the commission from going back a second time until six months had elapsed.
The Minister says, "Well, this is not all that restrictive because the commission can resort to its powers under Clause 11". What a suggestion! Why should the commission have to launch a full-scale investigation because it cannot apply to the respondent for further and better particulars? Surely that is nonsensical.
It appears to me that this amendment deliberately introduces, or could be seen deliberately to be introducing, a delaying mechanism. All the employer needs to do is to give a vague, uncertain answer and the commission cannot go back and request further and better particulars. If we are concerned that this Bill should become effective law, surely what is required is that the commission should be given every opportunity to arrive at the truth with the minimum of delay. This amendment, if acceptable to the Committee and later on to the House, will make it impossible for the commission to get at the truth within a period of six months. I very much hope that the Government will have another look at this amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: I shall reply instantly. Wimbledon has finished but perhaps I may give what I could call an instant volley reply to the noble Lord. I commend the noble Lord for his forbearance and patience, and my concluding remarks will consist of little more than two sentences.
While it is right for the commission to have extensive powers to inquire into an employer's discharge of his obligations, it seems fair to provide that the employer is not needlessly inconvenienced thereby.
Finally, if the commission for any reason considers that further action is required, then it has powers of full investigation under Clause 11. There is no question of any rogue employer weakening the powers contained in Clause 31. If the noble Lord's fears were to be realised and such cases became numerous, then the commission certainly has the powers given under Clause 11. I hope that it would use them and I think that the noble Lord believes that they would use them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Lord has not really answered the point, which is that if one asks for information and receives it then often that information leads to a need for further information. That is the first point.
The second point is that there is unnecessary delay if one has to wait for six months, and employers may use the device of giving inadequate information in order to obtain a delay.
Thirdly, the way round this difficulty which the noble Lord suggests is a full investigation; but that is a draconian measure which should not be necessary since all one needs to do is to ask for further information.
Lord Lyell: In reply to the noble Lord I think that he, partly at least, makes my case. He is a little worried that the power under Clause 11 is draconian. I do not think that it is necessarily draconian. It is there, it will be used and it will bite.
In the event, the noble Lord said that there may be an employer who was deliberately seeking to annoy or delude the commission. I believe that the amendment to Clause 31, backed up by the powers in Clause 11—draconian or not, they are there to be used—will be sufficient safeguard to satisfy the noble Lord and above all to protect the commission against recalcitrant employers.
Lord Prys-Davies: With the greatest respect I must say that the Minister has not met the edge of the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Surely it is a waste of resources and undermines the legislation if the commission cannot go back with a request for further and better particulars. It is as simple as that. We do not know whether an employer is embarking upon delaying tactics. All we know is that the commission cannot come back for six months for further and better particulars.
We believe that that is totally unsatisfactory. We ask the Government to have another look at this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 24, line 9, leave out ("information") to end of line 13 and insert ("as to the manner in which the return was prepared as it may specify,").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 24, line 33, leave out from ("and") to end of line 34 and insert ("assuming the action is taken, as to tae progress towards fair participation in employment in the concern, by reference to any period or periods, that can reasonably be expected to be made by members of that community.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43, 45 and 46. I think that the Committee will be pleased. This group of four amendments is intended to deal with a technical difficulty which we have identified in Clause 31.
As presently drafted, Clause 31 obliges an employer to disclose to the commission, on request, the findings of his periodic review of employment practices, and the decisions he makes in the light of those findings. The commission must, where a review reveals that fair participation is not being afforded, make recommendations as to the sort of affirmative action that the employer should consider taking, whether or not goals and timetables are appropriate, and if so the goals and timetables he might reasonably be expected to set.
Alternatively, the employer may, of his own volition, decide on a course of affirmative action and on the setting of goals and timetables and inform the commission of his plans. In that event, the

167
commission is empowered to make further enquiries about progress. But under the existing provisions if an employer decides to take affirmative action only after it has been recommended by the commission following the completion of his review, the commission is not able to use its powers of further enquiry under subsections (5) and (6) of this Clause, which are only available when an employer has made his own decisions and determinations.
The amendments that we propose are designed to remedy this anomaly by widening and broadening the commission's powers so that it may ask an employer who has taken affirmative action and set goals and timetables following a recommendation of the commission rather than entirely off his own bat, for further information about the progress that his efforts are making.
The amendments remove this anomaly by providing for a slight but useful expansion of the commission's powers. These provisions are not burdensome. They make good sense. In that spirit I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 24, line 35, leave out ("under this section").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 24, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall treat the disclosure by the employer as confidential until the six month expiry date has been reached or until, if earlier, the employer decides to make the disclosure public.").
The noble Lord said: This clause is an important one. Employers should be given every chance to respond to the commission and to provide the information that it clearly needs and is seeking. My amendment is designed to give employers encouragement to provide that information.
There is nothing within Clause 31 as presently drafted to state that the information when provided should be treated as confidential. Amendment No. 44 therefore proposes a new subsection to the effect that:
"The commission shall treat the disclosure by the employer as confidental until the six month expiry date has been reached or until, if earlier, the employer decides to make the disclosure public."
I should have thought it a very reasonable amendment and also rather important because, under the circumstances in Northern Ireland, every encouragement that can be given to the employers on such matters is important and this confidentiality would be such an encouragement. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said. However, I fear that we cannot agree to this amendment. The noble Lord has explained very clearly that, if the amendment is agreed to, it would prevent the commission from disclosing the decision of an employer to take affirmative action until a
168
period of six months has elapsed or unless the employer authorises him so to do. Notwithstanding the honeyed words of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, we have a fear that it would shackle the enforcement powers of the commission and thus tend to limit its effectiveness.
Lord Lyell: I am slightly puzzled by the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He has moved it in his usual honeyed tones but the substance causes me some puzzlement. I am not entirely clear. I appreciate that an employer who has informed the commission of his intention to affirmative action or actions might not want the full glare of publicity focused on his efforts as they evolve. However, I wonder whether the amendment proposed by my noble friend will achieve this. Nor am I certain whether it is a desirable objective.
As the amendment stands, it applies the confidentiality rule only to a disclosure made by an employer to the commission in respect of the type of affirmative action that he proposes to take under subsection (5) of the clause. It does not apply to a similar disclosure made under subsection (6) of the clause, which relates to goals and timetables. We think that the effect of the amendment would be to prevent the commission from disclosing the actual action which the employer had decided to take, but not from disclosing the goals that he was aiming to achieve or the timescale within which he was hoping to achieve them. My noble friend would certainly have wanted to catch those two elements in his amendment. That is why it appears a little inconsistent. For that reason, my noble friend's amendment is unlikely to work with regard to the aspect to which he has drawn the Committee's attention.
Lord Mottistone: I appreciate that the amendment may not be perfect and may be placed in a wrong part of Clause 31. I shall therefore read with care what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have said. I shall probably come back at Report stage with a tidier amendment, which may be more acceptable to noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 24, line 45, leave out from ("Commission") to ("the") in line 46 and insert ("a determination as to the progress towards fair participation in employment in the concern, by reference to any period, that can reasonably be expected to be made by members of a particular community").
Page 24, line 49, leave out from ("progress") to ("has") in line 1 on page 25.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 25, line 12, after ("subsections") insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Notices about goals and timetables]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 27, line 46, leave out from ("made") to end of line 4 on page 28 and insert ("towards fair participation by members of the community concerned—

(a) in employment, or any class of employment, in the concern in Northern Ireland, or

(b) among applicants to fill advertised vacancies for such employment or any class of such employment.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall not detain the Committee, but I must place on record that the objections that we have raised to the government amendments to Clause 30 apply with the same force to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 35, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: I have put down my objection to Clause 35. It seems to the employers in Northern Ireland that
Clause 35, although it is worded in the way that it is, is the legalisation of quotas by another name—quotas being preconceived ideas of how many people of a particular type should be employed, regardless of their qualifications or their past record of doing their job well in the area in which employers need to employ them.
For private industry, and for public manufacturing industry also, it is very important that people should employ only those who can do the job best so far as possible within the area of the factory, or whatever it is. This is a fundamental point. It seems to the employers of Northern Ireland that this clause will box them into a corner to employ people who are not necessarily the best for the job.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. How is an employer to meet any goals and timetables without making any decisions on the basis of religion? How does he avoid being open to a misdemeanour when he does not achieve any goals and timetables? Perhaps my noble friend can elaborate. Perhaps he will also explain how this clause is not meant to refer to quotas and, if so, how he squares that with the misgivings of the employers in Northern Ireland; and how he answers the question that I have just put.
Lord Dunleath: Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said, have Her Majesty's Government taken into account the number of small companies—I venture to suggest such as my own, employing some 32 people—where labour turnover is extremely low? The noble Lord would probably recognise from his experience in the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland that in small companies of this kind, where there is a really good relationship between management and labour, the turnover of labour is small. Therefore, opportunities to meet goals and timetables are very limited. Many
170
years may pass before there arise vacancies which can be filled by persons of another religious persuasion. Indeed, when such a vacancy occurs the Bill emphasises that it should be on merit. I entirely support that. Have Her Majesty's Government taken full account of the difficulty of small companies which have a settled labour force meeting goals and timetables, as mentioned in the Bill?
Lord Monson: Further to what my noble friend Lord Dunleath has said, I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain precisely what the term "on merit" means. Does it mean purely academic qualifications? Does it mean length of service with another company? Or does it include those intangible qualities that most employers everywhere in the world look for in employees which may have nothing to do with academic qualifications and have everything to do with their good nature, their ability to get on with other people and so on and so forth?
Lord Hylton: I am inclined to think that my noble friend Lord Dunleath has a good point about small companies with a very low turnover of labour. Surely, the answer is that the goals and timetables that may be set have to be long-term and cannot be expected to come about quickly or take effect rapidly.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whether he would not agree that it is better to have some goals and timetables set out rather than to find ourselves in a situation where, for example, the MacBride principles which have been so hotly debated in the States, are beginning to be applied in Northern Ireland? That might be a worse state of affairs.
Lord Lyell: I start by thanking my noble friend for the way in which he has set forth his objections to Clause 35. Perhaps the best I can do for him and for the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath, Lord Hylton and Lord Monson, is to try to answer their questions. Most of the points that they are worried about should come out when I explain why we believe that we need to retain Clause 35.
Clause 35 is an essential part of the provisions made by the Bill as a whole. We all believe that its removal would considerably diminish the effectiveness of what we are trying to achieve. Secondly, we do not believe that its removal is warranted in any way.
Let us be quite clear what we mean by goals and timetables. I stress to my noble friend that they are not quotas. Goals and timetables are simply targets or benchmarks which are established by the commission and against which progress can be measured. They respresent a degree of change which good faith efforts might reasonably be expected to bring about.
The fears expressed by my noble friend on quotas are entirely different. Quotas, as he will be aware, are a fixed number of proportion of jobs which the employer is obliged to allocate to a particular group. As such the only way these quotas can be met is by reverse discrimination. The Government have totally rejected such an approach in the past. I welcome the opportunity I have tonight of doing so

171
again. We shall not countenance any measures which involve reverse discrimination. We would not include it in the Bill and we would not include any provisions for goals and timetables if we thought that they would have that effect.
We believe that the clause is important because it provides the mechanism whereby the commission may, if it thinks it is appropriate, serve on an employer a notice about the progress it thinks might be made towards the achievement of fair participation in employment by members of the under-represented community. Such progress and the time within which it may be achieved are not absolutes. It is recognised that there will be circumstances which may contribute to these goals and timetables not being fulfilled. That is why the clause contains no penal provision for failure to meet a goal.
I repeat to my noble friend, as well as to other members of the Committee who have spoken, that goals are not quotas and employers will have no reason to regard them as such. But what a notice about goals and timetables will achieve is to give an employer something to focus on when he is taking affirmative action. It is difficult to envisage how a programme of affirmative action could be drawn up if it did not contain some reference to an ultimate objective. In this respect the clause provides flexibility.
The commission is empowered to make inquiries from time to time about progress. That will be helpful both to the employer and to the commission. If an affirmative action is not achieving its objectives, it obviously is in everyone's interest that the reasons for the failure should be brought to light as soon as possible. That is why the clause makes provision for penalisation in respect of inquiries by the commission into progress. It is essential that the implementation of goals should be accurately monitored.
These goals and timetables are not an end in themselves. They are an integral aspect of affirmative action and it is affirmative action which is one of the fundamental provisions of the legislation. If we take away goals and timetables that affirmative action becomes less effective. It is as simple as that. We do not think that there is any good reason for removing Clause 35. As I have explained, there are very good reasons for retaining it.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked about merit. That will be on the basis of ability and aptitude. Goals and timetables will be related and tailored to the circumstances of each individual company, let alone the small companies with which I would be familiar in my duties dealing with the Department of Agriculture and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. They are a measure of expectation; that and that alone.
For the reasons that I have outlined, the Bill needs Clause 35. I hope that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will accept my arguments for its continued inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. I shall read it with care and see what might happen at a later stage.
On Question, Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power to secure further undertakings or issue further directions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: I am advised that in the past the FEA has happily and frequently changed the goalposts. It has often recommended action to one employer but not to another in similar circumstances. In cases where things looked in order overall, it probed until it found something wrong. I suggest that that is not the way to gain the co-operation of employers. It is feared that Clause 36 is very much a cover-all clause giving the commission more or less unlimited power to call for any other information or action that it thinks fit. For example, could the Fair Employment Commission call for an employer to conduct training for non-employees? It would seem that within the terms of Clause 36 it could. It would be nice to be reassured about that.
If that is so, probably there is a necessity for something within the clause to restrict it within the bounds of what is practicable and real. Perhaps at another stage we shall go on to that. If my noble friend can reassure me, that would be helpful.
I should not be satisfied—I do not think any noble Lord would—to hear that of course the commission would not do anything. In real life that does not always prove to be the case with official bodies, I am afraid. With the very best intentions, if they are not restrained by the legislation in any way they can exceed and have exceeded in many other areas—nothing to do with Northern Ireland—the bounds of what people, when they passed a Bill, may have thought reasonable and at a later stage think is all right. There is a need for tightening up Clause 36; I should be grateful to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Lyell: I am fascinated to hear my noble friend say that he wants the clause tightened up. His amendment seeks to eliminate it. I find that curious. I wonder where my noble friend feels that he is seeing what I can only regard as bogies in Clause 36. I do not see anything in the clause, let alone in subsection (2), which would give rise to what my noble friend believes. I believe that Clause 36 stands or falls with Clause 35.
I was fascinated by what my noble friend said. Already we have found that 450 private sector organisations, many of which must be members of the CBI in Northern Ireland, do not find that Clause 36 will present them with any major problems. They are happy with, trust and get on with the Fair Employment Agency which will soon become the Fair Employment Commission.
The reason for Clause 36 is clear. It will strengthen the provisions of the Bill for goals and timetables, and will complement the procedures which we have

173
set out in Clauses 30 and 31 concerning the employers' period reviews of practice and the commission's inquiry into them.
I repeat what I said earlier. Failure to meet goals is not an offence. Any such provision would turn them into quotas. Again, I stress that the keynote in the clause is flexibility. The failure which is discovered may well be due to some change in circumstances over which the employer has no control. For example, anticipated vacancies in the workforce may not have occurred or a planned expansion may not have been realised. The failure may be due to some default on the part of the employer. He may have recruited persons by means of advertisements which reached only one section of the community, or he may have used unnecessary job criteria which the under-represented section of the community found difficult to meet. Whatever the reason for the failure, Clause 35 provides the means whereby it may be discovered and Clause 36 provides the means of remedying it. For that reason, we believe that Clause 36 is an essential adjunct to Clause 35 and a useful additional weapon in the armoury of the commission. We strongly support its inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I shall take advice at a later stage.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 43 agreed to.
8 p.m.
Clause 44 [Additional powers of Commission to obtain information]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 34, line 38, leave out from ("scale") to end of line 42.
The noble Lord said: It appears that Clause 44 (4)(b) is excessively powerful by way of further punishment, and one wonders whether it is necessary. I should be grateful if my noble friend could explain why he must be so punitive when trying to obtain the co-operation of others in regard to help. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, arrived this afternoon I expressed concern about a similar provision in Clause 5. I echo his worries about this provision in Clause 44.
Lord Lyell: As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, I stressed that the scale of penalties in the earlier amendment was necessary. The maximum scale I set out in the Bill is relevant and needed as a deterrent. Some penalties may appear to be draconian but they are intended to catch repeated offenders and infractions.
If the commission's powers are to be effective, they must be backed up with sanctions. So the clause provides that if the information requested by the commission is not provided by the specified time, the person from whom it was requested is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to £2,000. That
174
may be seen as a small price to pay for withholding information from the commission, particularly if the employer felt that its disclosure was likely perhaps to deny him public sector contracts. In order to cover this contingency the Bill provides that if a person is convicted of the offence of failing to provide the information requested, and after his conviction persists in failing to provide it, he is liable on a second or subsequent conviction to a daily fine of up to £200 for each day on which his failure continues.
We believe that the scale is necessary.
We do not believe that this is an unreasonable provision. The penalties provided in this clause are appropriate to the offences created. The provisions are precisely the same as those relating to the provision of information to the commission about the manner of monitoring or the conduct of the periodic review, let alone the goals and timetables.
My reply is the same as that which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in absentia, at an earlier stage. We do not see the penalties as being regular, but we see them as a necessary deterrent against repeated offences and continual infractions.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that explanation which I shall read with care. I shall decide what to do at a later stage. I beg leave to wihdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 35, line 41, at end insert—
(" 'advertised' shall be construed in accordance with the definition of "advertisement" in section 57 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976").
The noble Lord said: I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 51. They are consequential to Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 which we discussed earlier. They introduced the concept of a job applicant being a person who applies to fill an advertised vacancy in employment. It is necessary, therefore, to be clear about what constitutes an advertised vacancy, and the purpose of these amendments is to attract the definition of "advertisement" which already exists in the 1976 Act.
The definition of "advertisement", which is given in Section 57 of the 1976 Act, is wide-ranging. It includes every form of advertisement, whether the advertisement is to the public or not, and whether it circulates among a small group, or in the mass media of newspapers, radio, films and television. It is, therefore, not a definition which will inhibit the employer in any way, either when he is seeking to attract applicants or when he is monitoring applications where he is required to so do. Indeed, the definition will be helpful to both the employer and the commission in making it clear what constitutes an application for monitoring purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, repeating an argument that we have already heard. If our arguments in respect of Amendments Nos. 23, 34 and 38 leave those amendments untouched, clearly the definition of "advertised" is not sufficiently compehensive. I wish to emphasise and repeat that point. The Government intend to give protection to advertisements by way of mouth so that they are monitored. If the action of a person calling at a factory on his own initiative and obtaining employment—as outlined by the noble Baroness earlier—is not monitored, then the definition is inadequate.
However wide-ranging—and those were the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—the definition may be, it is not sufficiently comprehensive. Therefore, we should be grateful if the department would have a careful look at this definition if it intends that Amendments Nos. 23, 34 and 48 should remain untouched by Parliament.
Lord Lyell: I shall take on board the points raised by the noble Lord, as I did at an earlier stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Index to Part II]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53:
Page 38, line 1, at end insert—
("Advertised Section 46(1)").
Page 38, line 18, column 2, leave out ("27(3)") and insert ("27(1)").
Page 38, line 24, column 2, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 26(3) and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 38, line 40, after ("condition") insert (", policy or practice").
The noble Lord said: When we discussed Amendment No. 14 I had in mind both Amendment No. 54 and Amendment No. 57. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I now speak to both. These two amendments comprise an alternative approach to the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, identified when he moved Amendment No. 14.
The purpose of Amendment No. 54 is to tighten the provisions dealing with indirect discrimination so that the definition will accommodate the problems thrown up by developments in case law in anti-discrimination legislation. At present, as the Minister explained, a complainant can prove indirect discrimination only if he can establish that the barrier which has prevented him from securing the post amounts to a "requirement or condition". That is the critical phrase.
One could refer to the case of Mear or the case of Pereira, which are two well known and authoritative
176
cases where the Court of Appeal held that the complainant must establish that the offending provision constitutes an absolute bar to the complainant's employment. Anything less is not indirect discrimination. For example, that means that an employer can, without being in breach of the Act, decide to exercise a preference in favour of people who are not resident in West Belfast. As long as that preference is not an absolute ban, it will be legal under the provisions of this Bill.
In the result, a tribunal decision may well uphold as lawful in an individual case something which patently does not meet the equality of opportunity standards of most reasonable people. Therefore, if we extend the definition so that it comprises not only "requirement or condition" but also "policy or practice", that will solve the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, when he addressed Amendment No. 14.
If that amendment is not acceptable to the Committee, we should fall back on Amendment No. 57. This amendment would allow the tribunal, if it finds evidence of failure to provide equality of opportunity but not, because of the current restrictive interpretation of the words "requirement or condition", of indirect discrimination as defined by the Bill, to make a recommendation that the respondent should refrain from an action where it—the tribunal—was satisfied that justice could only be done by making such an order. Clearly we would not be concerned with Amendment No. 57 if the Government were to redefine indirect discrimination to include "policy or practice". I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. However, I am concerned about one aspect of this definition of indirect discrimination to which I referred on Second Reading.
The fact is that indirect discrimination, which some people find a quite difficult concept or notion, is arising in a large number of different types of legislation. It first emerged in race relations and sex discrimination legislation. It now emerges in analogous employment discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland and is also emerging in the consideration of European directives on equal treatment for men and women as regards pensions and other benefits.
The problem is that the definitions of indirect discrimination differ in each of the different laws. I believe that it is the same in the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act, but here we have a slightly different definition which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would like to make even more different. In the case of the European Community, the definition of indirect discrimination is once again different. The definition reads:
"For the purposes of the principles of equality …indirect discrimination exists where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice disproportionately disadvantages the members of one sex … and is not objectively justified by any necessary reason or condition unrelated to the sex of the person concerned".

177
I believe that the Government should think rather carefully about what they want to do on this notion and concept. It would be a great advantage to ordinary men and women if indirect discrimination always meant the same thing. If it is going to mean something different in each piece of legislation, I think we shall be very confused and it may be rather unfair. I should like to draw that to the attention of the Minister and I shall be interested in his comments.
Lord Lyell: Members of the Committee will not be totally surprised that I cannot agree with everything which has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, this evening, let alone on this amendment.
As we see it, this amendment is designed to widen the existing definition of indirect discrimination. This is an issue on which the Government and certain Members of the Committee opposite hold different views and which was discussed in a comprehensive and lucid way in another place. The position taken in another place has not changed.
I should like to re-emphasise the views of the Government on this issue. I appreciate that I cannot say to Members opposite that the Government propose to repeat the current definition of indirect discrimination in sex and race legislation. I understand the disappointment of the noble Lord at the interpretation that the courts have chosen to place on the phrase "requirement or condition". That interpretation is a matter for the courts.
I should like to reiterate the basic points made during discussion in another place. In our view the current definition is fair, balanced, reasonable and does not bias the system too heavily one way or another. We think it right that a complainant should have to show that he was excluded from employment by the condition and nothing more.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, wishes to see a broader definition introduced into the legislation to redress what he might consider to be the trend of the relatively recent Appeal Court decisions in the cases of Mear and Pereira. I do not share his view of this matter or that of his colleagues.
I should like to emphasise one of the central policy thrusts of the Bill. The problem lies not so much with the technicalities of the definition of indirect discrimination but much more with the unintentional and structural descrimination that occurs through slack and lax employment practices. That is why many provisions in the Bill are essentially practice centred; for example, compulsory monitoring and review, the provision for follow-up inquiries by the commission and the provision for the new commission to draw up a code of practice. These and associated provisions such as those dealing with goals and timetables, let alone affirmative action, will serve as the effective cutting edge in any struggle against discrimination. They will promote the best employment equality practice. For that reason I ask the Committee not to follow the line taken by the noble Lord, let alone that in another place, and not to accept the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his defence of the Government's position. He seems to suggest that it will be for the court to sort out the difficulties. I should mention that in the Mear case the court stated that this was a case which required Parliament to act. Here is an opportunity for Parliament to act.
I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He was good enough to alert us at Second Reading to the fact that he saw merits in a common definition, and that is the position of the Government.
In this Bill we are addressing ourselves to a situation specific to Northern Ireland in the light of the experience which has been gained since 1976. I point out to the Minister that there have been many occasions in this Chamber when the Government have been content to introduce legislation which differs considerably from Great Britain legislation. I need only to refer to the erosion of the right of silence in the courts. I believe that the position taken by the noble Lord is consistent with what he has been saying over the years. However, I think that it comes ill from the Government to reject the amendment on the grounds that here we are differing from the UK legislation. If it is for the convenience of the Government to differ, they will differ; if it is not for the convenience of the Government, then they will not differ.
We will consider our position and decide whether we shall come back to this issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 39, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) For the purpose of subsection (2) above, a person is not to be treated as discriminating against another person by reason only of refusing employment to job applicants who have

(a) been convicted of charges involving terrorism:

(b) openly supported terrorism, or

(c) openly supported a country or countries with which the United Kingdom was at the time at war or otherwise engaged in hostilities.").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 have been grouped together. However they cover different matters and therefore I shall speak to them separately. It would be quite possible for a Member of the Committee to support Amendment No. 55 and disagree with Amendment No. 56, or the other way round. I do not think that the wording of Amendment No. 55 requires much explanation.
The Government, broadly supported by the Opposition, not so long ago introduced what is now the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act because they rightly felt that it was wholly unreasonable to expect elected councillors to sit round the same table as supporters of terrorism, who were defined in the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act as people who publicly expressed support for or approval of a proscribed organisation or acts of terrorism.
Is it not equally unreasonable to expect people to work side by side at a factory bench, on a building site or in an office with people who openly support

179
terrorism or, even worse, people who have taken part in terrorist acts which have resulted in the death or maiming of friends or members of their family?
Paragraph (c) of this amendment covers a different point. It is obvious that nobody would have considered it reasonable that employees in England, Scotland or Wales should have been obliged to work side by side with somebody who, for example, in the early 1940s openly supported Hitler or the German armies. The days when extreme Irish Republicans also supported the Germans and Hitler have passed, but we should remember that supporters of Sinn Fein openly and enthusiastically supported General Galtieri at the time of Argentina's invasion of the Falklands and rejoiced in the deaths of British servicemen.
It would have been quite intolerable to require by law that normal patriotic people in Northern Ireland should work alongside such individuals. If they had been prepared to do so of their own accord, fair enough; but they should not have been obliged to do so in the past and should not be obliged to do so in the future. I beg to move.
Viscount Brookeborough: I feel that I should support the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in this amendment or at least ask my noble friend the Minister to look at something similar. I shall not waste time by going into the details of the matter. They are obvious in the context of terrorism as it exists in Northern Ireland. I therefore support the noble Lord in thought and maybe in hope for the future.
Lord Mottistone: I should also like to support this amendment in principle, although I suspect that it could be worded differently.
Lord Hylton: I am sorry to say that I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I know a number of persons who have been convicted of charges involving terrorism. Some of them are remorseful and regret their involvement because it turned out badly for them; others go much further than that and are repentant and have had a total change of attitude and outlook. On moral grounds they are convinced that what they did earlier was wrong.
It would be most unfair to discriminate again against people in the category I have just mentioned. As regards paragraphs (b) and (c), this seems to be very much a question of opinion. I do not see how these things can always be clearly proved. On those grounds I think that the amendment goes too far.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord. Lord Monson, has moved Amendment No. 55 in an excellent manner and very clearly. I believe Members of the Committee will accept that we would have every sympathy with an employer who refused to offer employment to an applicant who had been convicted of an offence connected with terrorism in Northern Ireland, was known to be an active member of a paramilitary organisation or was known actively to support terrorism in other ways. I share that sympathy. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble
180
Lord, Lord Monson, that Section 57(3) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 which is a section unaffected by this Bill, already provides that,
"a person's political opinion does not include an opinion which consists of or includes approval or acceptance of the use of violence for political ends connected with Northern Irish affairs (including the use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear)".
That is a direct quotation from Section 57(3) of the Act that is unaffected by the Bill.
The interpretation of this section would be a matter for the Fair Employment Tribunal if, in an individual case of alleged discrimination, a respondent used Section 57(3) as his defence. But I hope the noble Lord will see that at least two-thirds of his amendment is unnecessary. As regards paragraph (c) of the amendment, I believe it provides extremely difficult problems of definition. The noble Lord has alluded to one particular case as to what "otherwise engaged in hostilities" might mean or if we were at war on the occasion referred to by the noble Lord. I am not clear what the amendment might mean.
If an employer felt that to employ an applicant who actively supported a hostile power was likely to jeopardise national security, public safety or public order—and I stress here public order—the employer would be protected by the provisions of Section 42 of the 1976 Act which provides that acts done for any of these purposes may not be challenged under fair employment legislation.
I hope that that is sufficient to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the existing provisions in the 1976 Act provide the kind of safeguards that he is seeking. What I have said also refers to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. As regards paragraph (c) of the amendment I hope I have explained the difficulties concerning definition. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my explanations and will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Monson: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for their support of the principles of this amendment. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hylton for the first part of what he said. I understand what he is getting at as regards the question of repentance: perhaps one might look again at a later stage at a redrafted amendment in the light of what he said. However, I cannot agree with the second part of what my noble friend said. The difficulties of definition and subjectivity about which he spoke apply equally well to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act. If he criticises this amendment then presumably he is equally critical of that Act.
I am somewhat reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, but I do not believe it goes the entire way to meet my fears. As regards the wording of the amendment, the reason for including the word "hostilities" is that we were not actually at war with Argentina. We were most certainly engaged in hostilities and it may be that in a technical sense hostilities have not been officially ended. I am not quite sure on that point. I wish to study the matter

181
again in the light of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 39, line 11, at end insert—
("(2B) For the purpose of subsection (2) above, a person is not to be treated as discriminating against another person by reason only of giving preference in employment to job applicants who—

(a) have served for at least five years with the armed forces or the police, where such previous employment is relevant to the job in question, or

(b) are the close relations of existing employees with at least ten years' service.").

The noble Lord said: The wording of this amendment is also self-explanatory. It divides into two parts. There are many occupations where former service, ideally long service, in the armed forces is considered highly desirable, if not strictly essential. You only have to look around the Palace of Westminster to see what I mean. In a rather different sphere, the Corps of Commissionaires is, as I understand it, also recruited entirely from ex-servicemen, while former police officers are particularly sought after by security firms and private detective agencies.
It has been suggested that these sensible and long-hallowed preferences should be outlawed in Northern Ireland because members of one community are less likely to have served either in the police or the armed services. That is a nonsensical suggestion. I emphasise that the amendment deliberately does not specify a particular police force: former membership of a force in England, Scotland or Wales or indeed of the Southern Irish Garda would be just as acceptable as former membership of the RUC.
The second part of the amendment is also self-explanatory. For one family to have worked for another for generation after generation is considered by most normal people throughout the free world to be a commendable and admirable tradition. But we are told that Northern Ireland must be an exception to this rule.
At Second Reading I instanced the case of a Smith family. (The fact that the surnames that I used tend to be common surnames of English, Scottish or Welsh origin has no political significance.) I instanced the case of the Smith family who worked for the Jones family for many generations. Under the Bill it is quite likely that the younger Smith may be told that he cannot follow in the footsteps of his father, grandfather and great grandfather because young Robinson, who happens to come from a different religious community, has fractionally better 'O' levels than he has and therefore must be given the job, whatever the employer's preference.
Elsewhere in western Europe an employer would be able to take account of what might be called the intangible assets of a job applicant. He would not be bound to employ people purely on the basis of their slightly superior academic qualifications. The Conservatives claim to be the party of the family and the party of tradition. While this amendment
182
may go slightly against the grain of abstract social engineering, it upholds the value of both the family and of tradition. Therefore I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, at least in principle. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: I shall look first at paragraph (a) of the amendment that the noble Lord is attempting to introduce. There may well be job vacancies in Northern Ireland where experience of service in the security forces may be relevant. If the nature of the job is such that it cannot be done satisfactorily without that experience—in other words it is a requirement that is wholly justifiable for the job irrespective of the religious belief or political opinion of the applicant—then the employer is already on safe ground.
But there can be no doubt that an employer who persistently—I believe this to be the point at issue—demonstrated a preference for employing former members of the security forces would run the risk of a charge of indirect discrimination against the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland. As Members of the Committee familiar with Northern Ireland will know, the proportion of Catholic members of the security forces, is sadly low in relation to the overall numbers of Catholics in the community as a whole. The noble Viscount will know why, sadly, that is true. For that reason, and for the other reason I adduced, we think it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill, endeavouring to promote equality of opportunity for all, to include in it a provision which is clearly discriminatory in effect.
There could be great difficulty in determining in what circumstances security force experience was "relevant to the job". It is the role of the tribunal to determine when discrimination has taken place and of the commission to promote equality of opportunity and to advise employers to adopt employment practices consistent with it and to avoid those which are not. However sincerely the noble Lord has put forward his views, the amendment is wholly inconsistent with the promotion of equality of opportunity. For that reason I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: The Minister has cenfirmed my worst fears. Of course there are few jobs in the world where former membership of the security forces is absolutely vital for the effective carrying out of the job. However, there are a great many jobs where former membership of the security forces is extremely useful and desirable, if not essential. It is obvious from what has been said that what applies everywhere else in Western Europe and in most of the world cannot be applied uniquely in Northern Ireland because of the overkill aspects of the Bill. So many aspects of the Bill represent overkill.
The same applies to the question of sticking with the family tradition of working for a firm. The Left in Britain believes in social engineering. I respect its sincerity. I do not agree with it myself—I have totally opposed it—but that is its practice. Conservatives normally purport to oppose social engineering and favour family values and traditions. Yet in this Bill they are going totally against the grain of their own

183
traditions. It is late in the evening and I am sure that noble Lords are dying to get something to eat. For that reason I shall not pursue the matter further tonight but I may come back with a slightly revised version of the amendment at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Complaints of unlawful discrimination]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57:
Page 40, line 41, at end insert (", and
(d) a recommendation that the respondent take such action for promoting equality of opportunity as appears to the Tribunal to be reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with an earlier amendment.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 41, line 7, after ("may") insert ("(subject to the limit in subsection (4))").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 59. The amendments are designed to remove any doubt that might exist about the amount of compensation which the tribunal may award to an individual complainant. Subsection (5) of the new Section 26 of the 1976 Act which is inserted by Clause 49 of the Bill allows the tribunal in certain circumstances to award a successful complainant increased compensation if, for example, the respondent has failed to pay an earlier award of compensation or has failed to take other action ordered by the tribunal to alleviate the complainant's difficulties. The amendment makes explicit what is already implicit in the clause—that in such circumstances the total amount of compensation awarded may not exceed the maximum of £30,000 provided in subsection (4) of Section 26 as inserted by Clause 49.
Amendment No. 59 is a declaratory provision which is included for the avoidance of doubt and for consistency with the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: The Minister told the Committee that the effect of Clause 49 is to make it abundantly clear that the upper limit of compensation is £30,000. That is worrying. It is a movement away from the present position. At the moment the tribunal can make an award of up to £30,000 in compensation. The tribunal can also recommend that an employer takes further action to redress the situation. If he ignores that recommendation the tribunal can then make a further award over and above the original £30,000 to compensate for the employer's failure to act upon the tribunal's recommendation. This amendment ensures that the absolute maximum will be £30.000,
184
irrespective of whether the employer follows the recommendation of the tribunal. This is another example of the Government eroding their original provisions and therefore chipping away at the effectiveness of the Bill. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment and we ask the Government to reconsider their position.
Lord Lyell: I shall take on board what the noble Lord has said. But even he would agree that the sum mentioned is certainly reasonable in such cases. It is a fairly large sum. It is not chipping away at anything. However, I shall consider what he has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 41, line 51, at end insert—
("(12) It is hereby declared that the limit imposed by subsection (4) applies to the amount which the Tribunal would, apart from that subsection, otherwise award in respect of the subject matter of the complaint after taking into account any payment made by the respondent to the complainant in respect of that matter and any reduction in the amount of the award required by any enactment or rule of law.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 43, leave out line 27.
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 61. These amendments seek to reduce the powers of the commission in two respects. On page 43 of the Bill circumstances are set out in which the commission can obtain advice and assistance. Subsection (2) rounds itself off with a save-all, comprehensive sentence:
"or by reason of any other special consideration".
Subsection (3) ends with the words:
"any other form of assistance which the Commission may consider appropriate".
The sad point that I have determined both from the briefs I had at Second Reading and from talking as I have done to the CBI in Northern Ireland is that, for whatever reason, its trust in the FEA, the agency which currently exists, is minimal. It has found the agency to be oppressive and not respectful of private industry and what it tries to do. It advised me at Second Reading to inquire of my noble friend the Minister whether the new commission would be more professional in its approach. These two amendments are inspired by a doubt that the FEC can be trusted to have the more or less unlimited powers in any areas, especially in this part of the Bill. I find this distressing.
It would be helpful if my noble friend—perhaps not now, because I have not warned him that this is the way my thinking would go; and as I have studied all the amendments—could let me know what changes are being made as regards the personnel who will form the commission as opposed to those who formed the agency in the past. For example, is he in a position yet to tell the Committee who he has in mind for the commission? It would be helpful to know that because one may be able then to say to the CBI, "Well, this is a new bunch of chaps and they will probably be people who will not treat you in the cavalier fashion which the FEA did in the past".
Therefore the point of this amendment is basically to reduce the powers but also, in passing, to invite my noble friend to clarify the position with regard to the personnel of the commission. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I fully support Amendment No. 60, to which I have added my name. Moreover, I think that there is also quite a lot to be said in favour of Amendment No. 61. The purpose of Amendment No. 60 is to put a very modest brake on the powers of the commission. The commission already has very wide-ranging powers granted to it by specific provisions under the Bill. Therefore to allow it still further powers—powers which would be very much resented on the mainland, let us not forget, were they to be applied here in respect of religion, race, sex, age, politics or anything else—under the vague category of "any other special consideration", is tantamount to giving the commission carte blanche to do virtually anything. For that reason I fully support the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am rather saddened by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for whom I have every respect. I am especially saddened because I am sure that he does voice the view of a powerful section of opinion in Northern Ireland. I believe that all the amendments which have been moved by the noble Lord would weaken the effectiveness of the commission and therefore the effectiveness of the measure. If that represents and reflects the views of industry in Northern Ireland, then I am indeed saddened.
These amendments confine the range of potential complainants to whom the commission can offer assistance to present their case before the tribunal. The point should be made that the commission is not bound to offer assistance under Section 29(2). The potential complainant has no statutory right to receive assistance. We have been saying consistently since Second Reading that the commission will be a responsible body. I believe that we can rely upon the commission to exercise its discretion under the legislation responsibly.
I feel that the circumstances spelt out in subsection (2)(a) and (b) are most certainly adequate. That is my view. But, of course, in the school of experience one has learnt that one can never be certain that one has foreseen all the situations which may arise; neither can one be certain that all the situations in which it would be proper for the commission to give assistance have been foreseen.
Paragraph (c), which this amendment would remove, provides a fallback. It seems to me, on a practical level, that it would be very prudent to retain this sentence. For those reasons we urge the Government to stand by their position.
Lord Mottistone: I must point out that my amendments will not take away paragraph (c); they in fact take away one phrase at the end of subsection (2) and paragraph (e) of subsection (3).
Lord Bonham-Carter: I share the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Pry-Davies, about the cumulative effect of the amendments which have been proposed in the course of this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—even more so because they are, as he told the Committee, the opinions of the CBI in Northern Ireland. It is really rather depressing that a body of such importance should have such a negative view towards a measure which I think most of us in this Chamber feel is of the utmost importance in the light of history.
The effect of the accumulative amendments proposed by the noble Lord would be to emasculate the Bill almost totally. That can be their only purpose. As to the particular amendments which have just been proposed, it is my view that prospective complainants do need assistance. Further, it is my experience, having dealt with complainants, that what they really should have is legal aid. I think that the proposals in the Bill which give permission to render assistance to such people is highly necessary and therefore should be supported.
Lord Mottistone: I hasten to add in response to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, that they have got the wrong message in this regard. If they would be kind enough to refer back to what I said on Second Reading, they will understand that the CBI in Northern Ireland is right behind the Bill and has been so from the beginning. However, in so doing, the CBI is saying that it has not found it easy to trust the FEA.
The other point that I should like to make is that all the amendments which I have tabled are probing amendments; they are not emasculating amendments. Moreover, they seek to obtain information from the Government. The most important information that we require is confirmation that the FEC will be a more trustworthy body than was its predecessor.
Lord Prys-Davies: I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says and indeed what he has said. However, I am still saddened that there is this lack of trust on the part of industry as regards the commission. It seems to me that the cumulative effect of these amendments, although they are only exploratory, at least creates the impression that the commission does not have the support of industry to the extent that I should like to see it enjoy such support.
In reply to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I must say that it is not paragraph (c) in Section 29; it is the third ground given in that section although it is not labelled (c).
Lord Lyell: It is on occasions like this that I am delighted to say that I hesitate to intervene. I have a small note here and it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was almost making the case of the Government in his defence of some of the Bill's provisions. It is perhaps an occasion for humour during our lengthy proceedings.
I have quite a long reply for my noble friend, but I think that he would be grateful if I were to shorten it somewhat. I worry about the problem which has

187
been raised by my noble friend. He seems to think that the Fair Employment Agency has been, and the new Fair Employment Commission will be, oppressive. He seems to believe that, in this field of professional personnel management, the Fair Employment Agency, as it stands at present, is oppressive and not professional.
I stressed to my noble friend at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings that my door is open. However, with some hesitation, I suggest that his complaints are not necessarily relevant to the two amendments which he has put forward this evening. I shall nevertheless take on board the points he raised, although I have heard them before. As regards the composition of the commission, which is what concerns him and, no doubt, his friends in Northern Ireland, I should say, first, that arrangements are still in hand. Therefore it would be injudicious of me to give too many details at present.
Secondly, the commission will draw very largely upon the experience of the Fair Employment Agency. The staff and resources of the commission will be considerably increased and the post of chief executive has been advertised. I have no doubt that we shall receive many professional applications for it
I shall take on board the points raised by my noble friend. I hope that in his usual robust way he is being fair because I do not think that the Fair Employment Agency, let alone the commission, would ever seek to be oppressive, let alone unprofessional. If my noble friend feels that he has a point perhaps we might be in touch later, but not as a result of the fascinations of Section 29, as amended by Clause 49.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I quite understand that at this stage he cannot go as far as I should have liked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 64:
Page 43, line 45, after ("apply") insert ("(a)").
Page 43, line 47, after ("section") insert ("or
(b) in relation to any act done before the commencement of this section in respect of which a complaint under section 24 of that Act could have been, but was not, made before that time or in relation to any such complaint made in respect of it.").
Page 43, line 48, leave out ("such a complaint") and insert ("any such complaint or act").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that the Committee will be pleased if I speak to Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 together and move them en bloc, if the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman agrees.
This group of transitional amendments is designed to deal with the unlikely but not impossible situation of an individual complainant making a complaint under the existing Part III of the 1976 Act after the commencement of the new Bill. Clause 49(2) already provides that a complaint made to the Fair
188
Employment Agency and not disposed of before commencement of the new Act—that is, the Bill before us—is to be dealt with under the old Part III of the 1976 Act by the new commission.
The amendment provides that a complaint which could have been made before commencement of the new Act but which was not—that is to say, a complaint where the time limit for making a complaint runs beyond commencement—will similarly be dealt with by the commission's applying Part III of the 1976 Act. With that, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord has spoken to and wishes to move Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Provision of training]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 44, leave out from beginning of line 26 to end of line 3 on page 45 and insert—
(" "Measures to encourage training from under-represented community.
37A. Nothing in Parts III or IV shall render unlawful any act done by—

(a) an employer,

(b) an employment agency,

(c) a vocational organisation, or

(d) a person providing services mentioned in section 22(1) in or in connection with affording members of the Roman Catholic, or members of the Protestant, community in Northern Ireland access to facilities for training which is not intentionally confined to members of the Roman Catholic or Protestant community as the case may be and which would help to fit them for employment, or for employment in a particular capacity or occupation. Where the act is done in pursuance of affirmative action (within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989)."").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 65 is an attempt to address the problem which Clause 52 of the Bill addresses and which the new Clause under Amendment No. 66, tabled by the Government, is intended to address. Clause 52 itself is complicated and technical and so is our Amendment No. 65, though possibly it is less complicated. Certainly the new clause tabled under Amendment No. 66 by the Government is extremely complicated.
It is crucial that the Government get Clause 52 right. The aim of that clause is to protect employers who are setting up affirmative action programmes under Clause 56 from a successful challenge that the affirmative action programme itself constitutes a violation of the prohibition against direct or indirect discrimination. If we cannot give that guarantee to the employer, employers will be extremely reluctant to set up schemes of affirmative action.
Obviously the Government have experienced great difficulty in drafting the clause because they have returned with a new version. I might mention that I received a letter yesterday from the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, expressing its concern about the Government's new clause and the Government's

189
amendment to Schedule 2. I understand that those concerns have been conveyed to the Government.
It is vitally important that we get this clause right and certainly I shall not be pressing our amendment to Division. We are simply anxious to hear the Government's views on our amendment. However, if we do not get things right, the employers will simply not be prepared to run the risk of a prosecution by setting up training schemes in pursuance of affirmative action programmes because they fear that they will be challenged and will be found to be in breach of the law.
The difficulty is that our Amendment No. 65 meets or overcomes the weaknesses in the Government's amendment. In a sense, I apologise for referring constantly to the Government's amendment but it is only in the light of the perceived weaknesses in that amendment that one can see that there is a powerful case even for the Government's amended draft to be redrawn.
If we examine Clause 37A, a scheme which is for the benefit of a class which is framed by reference to a religious belief or a political opinion will be unlawful. So if the scheme is intended to be for the benefit of a religious group, that would be direct discrimination.
The following clause is more helpful because, if a scheme operates in a particular area such as the Falls Road, or in Shorts, for example, access to facilities by persons of a particular religious belief may be excluded or restricted. So that is a helpful clause. But in fact the scheme may have the effect of benefiting a religious group. But subsection (2) of the Government's amended draft only allows protection to the employer if his scheme satisfies paragraphs (a) and (b). What will happen in practice is that the person who wishes to challenge the lawfulness of the scheme will argue that the de facto scheme is having the effect of benefiting members of a religious group. Accordingly, if that is the effect, it will be argued that the intention is to benefit a religious group, and that will be in breach of the proposed subsection (I)(a). That argument would be reinforced by the fact that the employer has undertaken the scheme itself in order to ensure fair participation by members of one or other of the two communities. Therefore one can argue that that in itself shows an intention to benefit a religious group, which is not allowed by the proposed subsection (1)(b).
We claim that the Government have worked hard at these amendments but that they are still defective and will not provide the protection that is required. A person who claims that a scheme is unlawful will almost certainly succeed. The essence of our amendment is that we acknowledge that schemes which are specifically religious, in other words, which would have the effect of benefiting a religious group provided they are not intended to be confined exclusively to that religious group, will be lawful.
This is a complicated and technical argument. I have probably not done justice to the argument, but I should be pleased to hear the Government's response, if not today, between now and the next stage. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I am glad this amendment has been tabled because it gives me an opportunity to raise a point which may be unnecessary. However, I cannot be sure of that and I shall be glad if the Minister can tell me whether or not it is unnecessary. I need to declare an interest because I am currently the president of the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which is perhaps better known as NIACRO. The association, in parallel with various other voluntary bodies, provides training for released prisoners, ex-offenders and young persons at risk of offending.
Given the location of the workshops where the training takes place and given the supply at any moment of people within these categories, it may well be that the intake of a given workshop is unbalanced in one direction or the other. I hope the Minister can confirm that the Bill will not make present practices unlawful.
Lord Dunleath: I am on rather difficult ground here because, quite frankly, I do not know what I am talking about. Nonetheless I was much relieved to hear two things from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies; first, that he too acknowledged that this was a complicated matter and, secondly, that he had had contact with the Equal Opportunities Commission.
It seems to me that there are some difficult legal implications regarding the new Section 37A. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have thought them through. I fully acknowledge that I have not thought them through as I received my brief only this afternoon, and anyway I. am no lawyer. However, it seems there are some possibilities for conflict, for contradiction and for inconsistency.
In selecting persons for training two possible criteria can be used: one is gender and the other religion. It seems possible for some women to be disadvantaged through being targeted by both criteria, thus bringing about an imbalance. Length of service is another criteria for women. I am not sure that the broken service of certain women due to maternity leave or domestic matters has been taken fully into account. That is an anomaly which, if it exists, ought to be addressed.
I understand, arising from that situation, that claims of unlawful discrimination could be made under the sex discrimination legislation. It could also possibly contravene the EC equal treatment directive.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will understand the issue. I am afraid that I am not fully briefed on it. All I ask of the Minister is that he takes those possible difficulties into consideration. I am sure that if he were to ask his staff to get in touch with the Equal Opportunities Commission the commission would let him have copies of the briefing papers which I received today. Perhaps he would be prepared to give them careful consideration because I think that they contain material which may not have been taken fully into consideration in the preparation of these clauses of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I should like to ask the Minister two questions on this issue. The first is whether, in regard to training, this Bill is on all fours with the Sex Discrimination Act for the UK. Under that Act it is perfectly legitimate to provide training for a member of a sex which is substantially under-represented in a particular job. That is not regarded as discrimination. People will not automatically get a job as a result of the training, but the argument is that the training brings them up to a level starting place to enable them to compete for the job. Is that the intention in this legislation? If it is the intention there is no problem about providing training for the under-represented group. That group can quite openly be provided with training and that is not regarded as discriminatory.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised another point. I have forgotten what he said. Perhaps he could repeat his point.
Lord Prys-Davies: The point that I made was that under paragraph (b) siting a training centre in a certain area, say the Falls Road area, will benefit a certain community. It could therefore be argued by those who are hostile to the legislation that, because it favours that community, it is in breach of paragraph (a), which prohibits benefiting a class of beneficiaries framed by reference to religious affiliation.
Baroness Seear: I thank the noble Lord. If the point that I made about the Sex Discrimination Act is correct that problem does not arise. One is allowed to discriminate quite openly in training matters. It is when it comes to giving a job as a result of the training that the issue of discrimination arises.
Under our legislation—I do not know whether it is the same in this case or not, and perhaps the Minister could make that clear—it is not illegally discriminatory to remove a discrimination. It is discriminatory to discriminate in favour of a group, but it is not discriminatory to help a group which is discriminated against. I hope that Members of the Committee follow what I am saying.
Lord Lyell: Just‡
Baroness Seear: It is late at night, but there is an important difference. Removing an existing discrimination is not the same as discriminating in favour of a group of people. One is removing a discrimination which operates against a particular group. That is not discriminatory under our legislation.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may respond. As I understand it, an affirmative action scheme designed to increase the proportion of females securing promotion could also, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, lead to a rise in the number of Catholics securing promotion. As the clause stands, in our submission that would be unlawful because it would be discriminatory. That is why we say that we have to work hard on this clause to get it right.
Lord Lyell: Again I hesitate to intervene in a lively debate between the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I think that I just understood the second point raised by the noble Baroness. I may have some help for her, if not in relation to this particular amendment but certainly in relation to my own amendment which follows this one.
Perhaps I may begin by stressing two particular points. The first is that both the Government and the Opposition have agreed, following helpful discussions in another place, that Clause 52 should be amended in order to do two things. First, it should make it clear and explicit on the face of the Bill that affirmative action training is protected from both direct and indirect discrimination. Secondly, it should remove explicit reference to the criteria of age, unemployment or length of service which, if used as the basis of selection for such training, could in certain circumstances give rise to legal challenge under both UK and European Commission sex discrimination legislation.
The second point is that the Government have tabled their own amendment, to which I shall refer in a few moments, to deliver those two objectives. A third point follows from the first two; namely, that what is, as I understand it, basically at issue between ourselves and noble Lords opposite on this matter is not a difference of opinion about policy but rather a difference of view of how that objective can best be achieved.
The principal effect of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would be that affirmative action training to remedy under-representation would not be regarded as either directly or indirectly discriminatory, provided that the employer could prove that it was not intentionally confined to members of either the Catholic or the Protestant communities. So, bearing in mind that it is illegal to select for training on the basis of religion, if it transpired that an affirmative action training course, in which the participants were not selected on the basis of religion, turned out to be composed exclusively of either all Catholics or all Protestants, a charge of direct or indirect discrimination could not be sustained against the employer concerned, if he could prove that he did not intend to operate a course exclusively recruited from either Catholics or Protestants. Here, the test at issue is one of intention.
The Government considered that aspect deeply. We took legal advice at all levels and hold to the view that no test based on intention will be satisfactory. Indeed, we believe that a test based on intention is the wrong test, for three reasons. First, in the case of an employer who takes affirmative action, it is possible to infer an intention to treat members of the majority community less favourably. Which community was the majority would depend on the circumstances of the case and—although I hesitate to say it—on the geography of Northern Ireland. It could be either one or other of the two main communities in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, that inferred intention, coupled with the less favourable treatment, may amount to direct

193
discrimination. Thirdly, it follows that it would be possible to infer an intention—we are now getting into somewhat marshy ground with which I am sure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will be familiar—to isolate members of the majority community from the fact that training is part of affirmative action. But such an intention should not preclude the training from benefiting from the exception provided. That legal circularity creates rather than solves a problem. For that reason, we have adopted in our amendment the objective test which does not present the difficulties of proof for the complainant and the respondent which are an integral part of the subjective intention test.
In effect, we believe that, for the reasons that I have tried to set out, our amendment will provide a clearer, cleaner and more objective test than that of intention proposed in this amendment. I believe that I have been rather destructive. I have produced no reasons for not accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, but have not set out our own amendment. If the Committee will bear with me, I shall do so as briefly and as soon as possible. However, I can assure the noble Lord that there is not much between us. We believe that our amendment, which I shall move and explain as soon as possible, is the best, cleanest and clearest method of achieving that objective.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would like to make a quick point.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask one question. I find the argument fascinating in its complexity and in its obscurity. However, I cannot fully understand why the Government do not use the same formula as that used in the race relations and the sex discrimination legislation. This is a deliberate act because when this matter was raised in another place the answer was that it was not considered appropriate. The word "appropriate" covers a multitude of sins and I do not understand why it is not appropriate.
Lord Lyell: With the utmost politeness perhaps I may counsel patience to the noble Lord. I have only given one side—the dark side—of the argument and explained why I think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, does not meet the case; I have not yet expounded our case. I shall do so briefly and quickly in due course.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who raised one query, it is highly unlikely that the NIACRO (the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—I hope I have it right) training schemes will fall foul of the legislation. Although they may be attended by young people from only one religious group, they are not intended to exclude members of the other community. Such schemes would be protected from any charges of indirect discrimination. Certainly the schemes are not selected on the basis of religion and therefore there is no discrimination.
I hope that that explanation will be of some help to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and that the noble
194
Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will agree that our amendment will meet the objectives that he seeks.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall be very brief indeed. I think that the significance of the argument this evening is that it shows that there is immense uncertainty about the validity of the Government's amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that we seek common aims. However, we do not think that the Government's amendment will attain the desired result.
One has to be frank about this. We believe that the best approach is to draw a distinction between schemes which are religious exclusive and therefore unlawful and schemes which are religious specific—in other words, one targets a community and, provided that it is not intended to exclude all other members of the other community from benefiting from the scheme, that would be lawful. I believe that it is far better to face up to that dilemma rather than seek a roundabout way of achieving the desired end and fail to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 44. line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 45 and insert—
(" 'Provision of training in pursuance of affirmative action.
37A.—(1) This section applies where, in pursuance of affirmative action, persons are afforded access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for employment, for employment in a particular capacity or for a particular employment or occupation, but—

(a) the facilities are provided only at a particular place in Northern Ireland or the training is confined to persons of a particular class, not being a class framed by reference to religious belief or political opinion, and

(b) by providing the facilities only there or by so confining the training, access to the facilities by persons of a particular religious belief or political opinion is excluded or restricted.

(2) For the purpose of determining whether any act done in, or in connection with, affording those facilities is by virtue of section 16(2) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV. the fact that, by providing the facilities only there or by so confining the training, their access to the facilities is thereby excluded or restricted is to be disregarded.' ").
The noble Lord said: My putative remarks commence with telling the Committee that this is a most significant government amendment, relating as it does to the crucial area of affirmative action training. That is the gist of my earlier remarks. The new clause which we propose in this amendment replaces the existing Clause 52. Certainly I want to pay tribute to the discussions we have had earlier this evening as well as those in another place. We are dealing with training measures and, in the terminology current in fair employment, we usually refer to that as "outreach" training. These training measures are essential weapons in the armoury of affirmative action. We believe that providing access to training for an under-represented group is one of the classic ways in which competitive disadvantages, such as the lack of particular skills, abilities or aptitudes, which are all familiar to noble Lords, can be overcome.
We certainly think that such training is important not only to individuals who may be at a disadvantage

195
and to the under-represented group; we believe that it is also important to both employers and the new Fair Employment Commission. In view of the overall importance of affirmative action training, it is not in the least surprising that at earlier stages of the Bill as well as today there should have been considerable discussion about how best to provide for it. It is true to say that the discussions have produced many valid points.
However, in bringing forward our amendment, as against that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the Government sought to address two special difficulties associated with the old clause and one central priority. The first difficulty was the need to provide protection for employers taking affirmative action training from both direct and indirect discrimination. While there was considerable room for debate and discussion about how far the existing clause provided such protection, the Government accepted the general proposition that the greater the degree of clarity in this area the better.
The second difficulty that we felt we had to overcome was that the criteria for selection suggested in the existing clause as a basis for constituting a training group—I referred to them a little earlier in the previous amendment: age, unemployment or length of service—could in certain circumstances have left employers open to charges of indirect sex discrimination under both United Kingdom and European Community legislation.
The new clause proposed in this amendment is designed to address these difficulties. It is also designed to address the central policy objective in the Bill; namely, that while affirmative action training is to be protected against both direct and indirect discrimination, it is not to permit religion specific or religion exclusive training. In other words, in selecting a group of people for training, an employer should not be permitted to select on the basis of religious belief or affiliation. That policy imperative is central to fair employment; indeed to depart from it would allow individuals to be turned away from, or refused entry to, training opportunities simply because of their religion.
There is unemployment and disadvantage in both communities in Northern Ireland. Jobs and training—which are what we are discussing this evening—are needed by both Catholics and Protestants. That emphasises the sound reasons why we hold fast to this central policy objective of selection for both employment and training irrespective of religious belief or indeed political opinion.
This new clause is a considerable improvement on existing Clause 52. We believe that it is more objective. We think that it will be clearer, will avoid the potential difficulties associated with the existing clause and will prove easier for both employers and the commission to operate. I commend the clause to the Committee. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: Can my noble friend tell me how this training under the altered Clause 52 will be paid for? Will it be paid for by the Government or will there be a hidden charge on industry?
Lord Lyell: It will be existing training either by government and possibly also by private sector employers. That would be a matter for discussion. I had probably better not give my noble friend detailed answers this evening. So far as I am aware most of this training would be from the public sector but I am sure that there would be participation from the private sector.
We are still considering this aspect. Perhaps I shall be able to give my noble friend some detailed answers. I doubt that it will be before the next stage in the proceedings on the Bill. However, I shall take his points on board and reply to him either in the Chamber or by letter as soon as possible.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall not detain the Committee except to emphasise once again that this is a core provision. It is probably the most important provision in the entire Bill. For the reasons that I have given, we believe that the Government's amendment is flawed. I have a feeling that after studying the words of the Minister we shall still have to return to this clause at a later stage.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I believe that the Government are making matters unnecessarily difficult for themselves. The idea behind the training schemes is to bring people who are under-qualified up to a level at which they can compete. The classic example in the race relations field is that of Asians who cannot speak English. It was clear that until they spoke English they could not compete on equal terms for a job. It was totally Asian-directed, therefore, and Asian-specific, but it was not regarded as discriminatory because discrimination in training did not apply. Where the discrimination applied was in the allocation of jobs. Once that Asian boy applied for a job in competition with a white boy then it had to be on the merit of the person in question.
I cannot believe that it is necessary in training to eschew religious training. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, a training scheme in the Falls Road is de facto religious specific because no one from the other community will go to be trained in the Falls Road, is that or is that not allowable under the Government's amendment? I simply do not know. It would seem to me that it probably is not. Therefore I should have thought that, if the formula that has been established in the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts which allows race-specific and sex-specific training is followed, that would enable the Government to overcome the difficulty with which we have been struggling for this past half hour.
Baroness Seear: I should like briefly to add to what my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter has said. On a number of occasions I have taken part in women-only management training programmes for companies where there has been a dearth of women in management so that, to redress the balance, women-only courses have been put on. That is totally illegal. In an organisation in Northern Ireland which has no supervisors of a given faith, such as no Catholic supervisors. It would, by analogy with the English situation, be perfectly proper to put on

197
religious specific Catholic only supervisory training programmes. This is the exact analogy with what has been done for women —religious specific supervisory training programmes for Catholics because they are under-represented. What is wrong with that?
Lord Hylton: I am reading Amendment No. 66, incorporating new Clause 37A(1)(a). The words are:
"the facilities are provided only at a particular place in Northern Ireland".
I should have thought that that covered the example recently given of a training scheme in the Falls Road. Then we go on to read:
"or the training is confined to persons of a particular class".
I should have thought that covered my earlier example of NACRO's ex-offender training.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has made a valid point. I shall attempt to take on board the points that have been raised by the experts—the noble Baroness, who is expert in sex discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who draws attention to some aspects of race discrimination. I wish them to remember that we are talking about Northern Ireland, where there is a third and more insidious form of discrimination. There is much to be learned which is being learned as a result of both sex and race discrimination measures in Great Britain.
The main thrust of what I and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have been trying to put across—I hope that I have it right and that we are on common ground—is that we are looking for a method whereby affirmative action and specific training will leave the employer unable to discriminate on grounds of sex, race or, certainly, religion. Where the employer is seeking affirmative action under the Bill, he should not be found guilty of discrimination under other aspects which have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. That is the main thrust of Amendments Nos. 65 and 66. I hope that we have improved Clause 37 by our Amendment No. 66. It is for that reason that I ask the Committee to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
Page 45, line 37, leave out ("or 28") and insert ("28 or (Monitoring applicants)").
Page, 45, line 41, leave out ("or 28") and insert ("28 or (Monitoring applicants)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Meaning of "affirmative. Action]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 46. line 8, leave out from ("of") to ("in") in line 9 and insert ("all religious denominations and none").
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment would be to alter Clause 56(1) so that it read:
"In this Act 'affirmative action' means action designed to secure fair participation in employment by members of all religious denominations and none in Northern Ireland by means including".
Clause 20 declares that:
"'equality of opportunity' means equality of opportunity between persons of different religious beliefs".
How strange and contradictory, therefore, is the fact that Clause 56 specifies that affirmative action should apply only to members of the Protestant or Roman Catholic communities. It thereby discriminates against Quakers, members of the Orthodox Church, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists. I am interested to note that Amendment No. 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, approaches the same problem in a slightly different way.
One suspects that the truth is that the clause is not aimed at religious affiliation but at political affiliation. Few people in Northern Ireland care whether English, Welsh, Italian or German people working in Northern Ireland are Protestants or Catholics. Either way they constitute no threat to anyone. Similarly, there is no discrimination by Protestants against Roman Catholic members of the UDR or RUC, although they may be discriminated against by a few members of their own community.
It must be emphasised that a large part of the problem that we are addressing in the Bill is due not to deliberate discrimination but to other factors. I should guess that such discrimination as exists is 70 per cent. political, 20 per cent. cultural and only 10 per cent. purely religious. It would be more honest if the Bill spelt that out. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: This amendment and Amendment No. 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, raise an important principle. I should like to see the Government accepting either one or the other. If they cannot do so they should produce their own improved version at the next stage.
Lord Lyell: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will accept that the effect of his amendment would be to compromise the main political objective behind affirmative action in Northern Ireland. That objective is to encourage a more proportionate distribution of jobs and employment opportunities between the two main communal religious or political groupings in the Province.
That is why monitoring and affirmative action relate to both the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. Everybody in the Province, regardless of their religious beliefs, is covered by the anti-discrimination and equality of opportunity provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that in this context the key issue in fair employment is the more proportional distribution of jobs between both major communities. I am afraid that in Northern Ireland

199
and in Northern Irish terms that means the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. For that reason, I believe that Clause 56, as drafted, meets the needs and the main thrust of the Bill, which I believe we are all agreed is particularly necessary in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will accept that we do not believe that his amendment is particularly helpful in that regard.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hylton for his support. What the Minister said confirms my supposition that the essential thrust of Clause 56 is political and not religious. In a way it is curious that Amendment No. 70 is not grouped with this one. There were some misgroupings earlier, when amendments were grouped together which should not have been, and now these two have not been grouped together when they should have been. However, it may well be that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is superior to mine in various other respects and I look forward with interest to what he has to say. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Blease Lord Blease moved Amendment No 70:
Page 46, line 13, at end insert—
("(1A) Affirmative action under subsection (1) above shall not be to the exclusion or discrimination of members of the Northern Ireland community who are not professed or classified for the purposes of this Act as members of the Protestant or of the Roman Catholic community.").
The noble Lord said: Before I speak to this amendment perhaps I may say that I admire the stamina of the Minister. He has now sat for seven and a quarter hours, sometimes for lengthy periods alone, which shows the confidence which his parliamentary colleagues have in him to deal with this Bill. My flagging concentration compels me to be brief in what I have to say, although I must do justice to the arguments which I believe this matter deserves.
The purpose of Amendment No. 70 is to attempt to write into the legislation a reference to members of the Northern Ireland community other than Protestant and Catholic members. I could put forward arguments and reasons why I believe that is justified. There is a tendency in this Bill to present Northern Ireland as consisting of only two communities: the Protestant and Catholic communities. I believe that that is false and completely misleading and does a disservice to the situation in Northern Ireland.
The problem in Northern Ireland is looked upon and seen throughout the world as a religious problem. I believe that it is the absence of religion which is to blame, and that is not by any means just a throw-away line. I believe that the values placed on religious persuasion mean that reconciliation and working together is something to strive for. The problems in Northern Ireland are confused. There are political and social divisions and issues in the Northern Ireland community as there are similarly
200
in other communities. What rather compounds the problem in Northern Ireland is the blatant politically-motivated terrorism. That is what we must tackle. I am afraid that, while I fully support this Bill, it slants completely away from that desired objective of promoting reconciliation and understanding.
The citizens of Northern Ireland are not throwing Bibles and rosary beads at each other. They are not trying to crash each other's skulls, and they are not standing on corners debating theology and the Westminster "Confession of Faith". In Northern Ireland there are a number of communities which could be categorised along the lines set out in this Bill. There is the working class community, the professional community, the upper class community, the disabled community, the deprived community, the unemployed community, and the homeless community among many others, including the farming community of which the Minister will be aware.
I am glad to say that there are many Catholics, Protestants and others—the peace loving community—who carry out much voluntary and caring work with a sense of justice and fairness. I do not want to labour the point. The Bill tends to higher the sectarian walls by creating misconceptions and more misunderstandings. There is almost a strengthening of the myths about religious differences. Therefore, although I fully support the Bill, I should like to see some adjustment to that concept.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have listened with great sympathy to my noble friend Lord Blease who has, by his own example, sought to work in partnership with members of both communities in Northern Ireland. This amendment intends to ensure that non-Protestants and non-Catholics are not damaged by the affirmative action programmes.
With great respect to my noble friend, I believe that the amendment is misconceived. First, it is contrary to the whole thrust and philosophy of the Bill, which is designed to deal with inequality between Catholics and Protestants. Indeed, it is to provide a basis for a legal attack on the existence of discrimination and of inequality of opportunity. Secondly, we believe that it is unnecessary, to the extent that neither the government nor the opposition amendments make provision for religious exclusive affirmative action of the kind we have been talking about with regard to Clause 52.
It would be of assurance to my noble friend Lord Blease if the Government could get the affirmative action under way. All the people of Northern Ireland would stand to gain from that. If it takes place effectively the benefits will accrue to the entire population of Northern Ireland.
Lord Lyell: I should like to thank the noble Lord Lord Blease, for his opening compliments. He should know that my duties in Northern Ireland take me around the Province. I assure him that the night is young. If the noble Lord has attended any agricultural dinners, as I have, he will know that the Minister never speaks before one o'clock in the

201
morning, and that is only the first speech. I shall not follow that example this evening.
The effect of the amendment would be to compromise what I referred to earlier in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Monson; that is, the main political objective in Northern Ireland behind the affirmative action in the Bill. The objective is to encourage at all times a more proportionate distribution of jobs and employment opportunities between the two main communal religions or political groupings in the Province. That is the problem which we are trying to address in the Bill. It is for that reason that both monitoring and affirmative action relate to the two main communities. Everybody in the Province is covered by the anti-discrimination and equality of opportunity provisions in the Bill.
In the political context the key issue in fair employment is a more proportional distribution of jobs between both communities. I think that the noble Lord will accept that that means Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. That position certainly applies as regards monitoring obligations placed upon employers, followed through with the important area of affirmative action measures.
At the heart of the Bill the fundamental problem that we are addressing is the distribution of jobs and employment opportunities between members of the two main communities. It is important that the monitoring and affirmative action provisions of the Bill in particular relate specifically to the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. To attempt to give them a wider and more diffused focus would make life exceptionally difficult for employers and would draw attention, resources and effort away from the main issue.
Let us not forget that it is the commission that is going to be given the duty to work for the elimination of discrimination and to promote equality. We believe that the Bill provides comprehensive coverage in the area of discrimination and equality of opportunity.
202
It is for that reason that we ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment because we believe that the Bill, especially as it is drawn in Clause 56, covers affirmative action as it should be covered in Northern Ireland.
Lord Hylton: I expect we have all heard the stories of atheists living in Belfast who have been immediately classified as either Protestant or Catholic. There was even the story of a GP in Derry who became so fed up with the carry-on of the two main religious communities that he became a Baha'i. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of that story but it is indicative of the background.
I believe that the merit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is that it is framed in negative terms. It states,
"shall not be to the exclusion or discrimination".
I believe that is a strong point in its favour. It would be a terrible pity if this Bill succeeds in its main objective of ending employment discrimination between the two main religious and political groupings only to allow or encourage discrimination against others. I hope that we have not heard the final word from the Government on this point.
Lord Blease: I thank particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench for his remarks and the points he made. I am not convinced that he has got the real meaning of my intent in tabling the amendment. I believe that the Minister has dealt with it in a manner which is not helpful to the general need of the Northern Ireland community. There are areas where training, employment and reinvestment are all required. If people are to be treated purely in terms of Catholic or Protestant blocs then we are in for more trouble than we have ever envisaged. I propose to return to this matter at another time. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of certain provisions of Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.
Subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 (certificate that act done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, or of protecting public safety or public order to be conclusive evidence of that fact) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to allow judicial review of the national security notice issued by the Secretary of State. Members of the Commitee will know that the effect of the national security notice under Section 42 is to prevent an investigation by the commission into the merits of a case of alleged discrimination on the ground of national security. That is an issue to which we drew attention during the Second Reading debate.
We pointed out that there is no provision in the 1976 Act or anywhere in this Bill for any form of judicial review to prevent the abuse of the certificate procedure. There is in fact an anomaly between this Bill and the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order since a national certificate issued under that order is subject to judicial review. Moreover, there is an anomaly within the Bill itself. Part II of the Bill deals with contractor compliance. A contractor who is deemed by the Secretary of State to be an unqualified person to hold a contract on the grounds of national security can apply for judicial review.
We also believe that in this respect the Bill may be in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires the individual citizen to have a right of redress against the arbitrary use of power. We say that individuals should not be denied access to employment on the pretext of national security. Of course we fully accept that the Secretary of State must have the power to issue a Section 42 certificate, but at the very least an individual who believes that he has been discriminated against unlawfully by the issue of the certificate should have the right to call for a judicial review. We do not say that he should have the right to have the reasons for the decision. We are asking that he should be entitled to the right of judicial review of the decision. By removing subsections (2) and (3) of Section 42 that would be possible.
At Second Reading the Minister assured the House that the department was considering how this procedure could be improved. I hope that by tonight he is in a position to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Brookeborough: In putting my name to this amendment I show support for it to the extent that yet again we are trying to improve the public's perception of the impartiality of this legislation. It is not that we would doubt the job that the Secretary of State is carrying out, his willingness to provide certificates or anything else. From time to time the Secretary of State may change, and indeed after an election the government may change. It must not be
204
seen by the public of Northern Ireland to be a Conservative or Labour decision to grant or not grant a certificate. We should like to improve the impartiality of the legislation and to improve what the public think of it. In that sense it follows along the lines of Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 which were moved earlier this afternoon.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised this point at an earlier stage. During the Second Reading debate I explained that we believe that the issue of a certificate under Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 is an inseparable part of the national security safeguard which that section provides and which all noble Lords, especially the noble Viscount, will agree is absolutely necessary. To permit wider scrutiny of the reasons for the issue of such certificates would be to jeopardise the sensitive information on the strength of which such certificates are issued and in so doing to do potential harm not only to the efforts of the security forces in Northern Ireland to gather valuable intelligence about terrorist organisations but quite possibly to the safety of individual people.
Applications for Section 42 certificates are not treated lightly. They are subject to the most detailed scrutiny. They are considered personally by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I know that he makes his decision only after the closest and most thorough deliberation. Certificates are not issued in haphazard ways. It is significant that, since the passing of the 1976 Act, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has issued Section 42 certificates on 17 occasions. To dismantle the certification process would undermine the entire and vitally important purpose of the safeguard for national security. To do this would not only be irresponsible but could be dangerous.
We take on board the strength of feeling which this matter has aroused as well as the genuine concern that has been expressed about the way in which the certificate procedure is operated. The whole process is, by definition, concerned with sensitive information and its analysis and assessment and the whole procedure itself is confidential. I realise that this is one of the reasons why the issue of Section 42 certificates is regarded with considerable suspicion. I hope that it is not a cloak to cover up lack of discrimination or even something which can be used by unscrupulous employers. That is not the case; but, certainly genuinely held anxieties do exist.
Members of the Committee may be aware that we have examined for many months how we might introduce an independent element into the procedure. We have not yet been successful in discovering how we can achieve that aim. However, we are looking at the administration process which we undertake. It is important that that process should be as straightforward and efficient as possible, and that when papers are submitted to the Secretary of State for his consideration, the advice and information they contain should be clear and wholly accurate. I must stress that everything

205
possible will be done to eliminate the possibility of injustice in the issue of these particular certificates under Section 42.
I do not think that what I have said will satisfy the noble Lords who have moved this amendment, but I am afraid that it demonstrates the determination of the Government to see that the Section 42 system operates fairly. I ask noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment to accept that explanation in the spirit in which it is offered. I ask them to withdraw the proposed new clause, which would seriously damage the national security safeguard which the section provides.
I am sorry that I cannot go further than that tonight, but 17 certificates issued in 13 years is perhaps 17 too many. It must show Members of the Committee that this is not something which is carried out lightly, or without any thought. From my own knowledge of such matters, I know that these papers are read very thoroughly by all authorities, right up to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and very searching questions are raised upon them. Further, the certificates are not granted without full and, I believe, justifiable reasons.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am sure we accept that the certificate is only issued after the most careful consideration. Our amendment is not based on any evidence that that is not so. But, concern arises on the part of individuals who believe that they have been discriminated against. It is their case that the certificate should be open to scrutiny by an independent third party. We suggested judicial review because that is the procedure which applies in the case of certificates issued under the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
It seems to me that if a certificate issued under the sex discrimination order can be the subject of judicial review without threatening national security, then a certificate issued under the 1976 Act should also be capable of review.
The Minister has moved some way to meet us in this respect. However, does he anticipate that at the next stage of the Bill the Government will be tabling an amendment which will introduce an independent element into the Section 42 procedure?
Lord Lyell: I am most grateful for the reply given by the noble Lord. As we speak tonight and knowing, as I putatively put it, the scheduled commencement of the Report stage of the Bill in this Chamber, I think that it is extremely doubtful that we shall have an amendment by that time. However, I shall make a careful note of what the noble Lord said and will be in touch with him before the next stage, I hope as early as tomorrow. But I really cannot give the guarantee he requested at this time. I hope that I shall have further news before the completion of the consideration of the Bill in this Chamber; but, certainly not by the next stage of the proceedings on the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: Again, relying upon the Minister's words, and with the leave of my colleagues whose names were tabled in support of this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 51, line 38, at end insert—
("23A. In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule I to that Act for "Schedule 5" there is substituted "Schedule I to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989".").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment, because the existing reference in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 to Schedule 5 to that Act is, I have to tell the Committee, in error. It is in error since Schedule 5 to the 1976 Act has been replaced by Schedule 1 to this Bill. That provides the necessity for the drafting amendment which I propose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 52, line 6, at end insert—
("The Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I.15))
27A. At the end of Article 49 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 there be added—
"(4) Any act which by virtue of this Article or Article 48 could not be unlawful under Parts III to V (or, in the case of an act falling within paragraph (3), under Article 15) is not by virtue of 16(2)(b) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 (indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion) unlawful under any provision of Parts III and IV of that Act."").
The noble Lord said: I think that this is where Lyell's luck tends to hold since, with Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, it was the turn of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter. However, at this stage my amendment has been called by the noble Lord the Lord Chairman before the competing amendment—if I may call it that—of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter.
The amendment honours a commitment made in another place to provide protection against indirect religious discrimination for what we call the "positive action" or gender specific training permissible under Articles 48 and 49 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. Both the Opposition—that is noble Lords cpposite—and the Equal Opportunities Commission raised concerns about this matter. We are pleased to be able to try to meet their representations.
The positive action or gender specific training permissible under Articles 48 and 49 is a useful tool in the promotion of sex equality. Obviously the Government would not wish to see its progressive

207
use potentially inhibited by the new provisions in the Fair Employment Bill before us this evening. As the Committee will appreciate, one of the most significant new features of the Bill is the outlawing of indirect religious discrimination. Direct discrimination is illegal under the 1976 Act.
Given the new prohibition on indirect religious discrimination in Clause 48, new Section 16(2)(b) of the 1976 Act, concern was expressed to us that employers who genuinely seek to implement gender specific training under Articles 48 and 49 of the Sex Discrimination Order 1976 could quite inadvertently find themselves guilty of indirect religious discrimination.
There are of course three tests that have to be satisfied before indirect discrimination can be proved. First, adverse impact; secondly, unjustifiability; and thirdly, detriment. While it may be difficult in practical terms for an individual to satisfy all three tests in alleging indirect religious discrimination, as a result of gender specific training programmes—especially when an employer should be able to show that such a programme is justifiable, irrespective of religious belief or political opinion—we hope that we can provide the protection which is requested by the Equal Opportunities Commission and Members of the Committee opposite. Indeed, we are satisfied that such protection is necessary because the indirect discrimination element is a new feature of our fair employment legislation, above all the Bill before us this evening.
I hope that that explanation will bring about the approval of the amendment which stands in my name before the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I do not wish to detain the Committee long on this penultimate amendment in such a long day. The objects at which both amendments are directed are the same. It is simply my contention that the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is better than the one tabled by the Government. This is for a simple reason. As I understand it and read it, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, covers only indirect discrimination. The point of the amendment which I and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have tabled is that it covers both direct and indirect discrimination. It is for that reason that I prefer our amendment to that of the Government.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I very much wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has told the Committee. Our amendment, in our view, is far superior to the Government's amendment because it addresses both direct and indirect discrimination. I mentioned earlier in the day that I had received a letter from the chair of the Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission. I was told by the chair that the commission itself was hesitant about endorsing the terms of the Government's amendment because it fails to address both aspects
208
of discrimination under Section 16 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 but is confined solely to indirect discrimination. As it is confined to indirect discrimination, there will be scope for legal challenges to gender specific training unless this amendment is more widely drafted so as to cover both direct and indirect discrimination.
Lord Lyell: I shall reply to the very delicate way in which the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Prys-Davies, placed their amendment in competition to mine. I think both of them would accept that in my opening remarks I pointed out that the 1976 Act already makes direct religious discrimination illegal. We have ensured that that is covered in our amendment. I hope that will also cover the query that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
For many reasons, I shall not go into a lengthy explanation tonight. We believe that our amendment should be satisfactory and will meet the queries that have been raised by the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland.
Lord Bonham-Carter: If the Minister can give me and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, an assurance that direct discrimination is covered, I shall be happy not to move my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 52, line 10, at end insert—
("28A. In Article 32(3) of that Order at the end there is added—
"(c) a dismissal which is an act of discrimination (within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976) which is unlawful by virtue of Part III of that Act."").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be pleased to know that this is a technical amendment to the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. It covers a complex but relatively minor issue. It is suggested that I explain the provision briefly. If the Committee wishes me to do so I shall, but it may wish to leave this as a technical amendment to the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
The main purpose of the amendment is that it provides that compensation payable under the order in a case of alleged unfair dismissal on the grounds of religion is the same as that payable in a case of unfair dismissal on the grounds of sex. That might be of some relevance to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We hope that the amendment will bring the Bill into line with the provisions of the 1976 order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Bill
10.20 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a very short Bill. It consists of only two clauses. It is designed to tighten controls on the sale of alcohol to under-age persons from supermarkets and other premises covered by an off-sale licence in Scotland. It might be useful, even at this late hour, if I briefly outline the background and the reasons why it was felt necessary to introduce the Bill.
In October 1986 the Scottish Home and Health Department issued a consultative document seeking views on possible amendments to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. Apart from a reference to "children's certificates" for public houses, no views were sought or expected in regard to under-age drinking. At that time there was discussion about the public house being made into a family environment and about children's facilities. At that stage the department did not ask for and did not expect to receive comments on under-age drinking.
However, it soon became clear that that was the issue of most concern throughout Scotland. About 70 community councils in Scotland and many thousands of members of the public wrote to the department expressing the view that there was a need for more stringent control of the sale of alcohol from off-licences to help combat the problems of under-age drinking.
At about the same time the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys carried out a survey of adolescent drinking. About 2,000 adolescents in Scotland aged between 13 and 17 were surveyed and the report was published in December 1986. The report's findings indicated that among 14 year-olds in Scotland 32 per cent. of boys and 28 per cent. of girls who drank said tint if they purchased drink for themselves they usually purchased it at off-licences. Twenty-one per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively said that they usually bought drink from shops or supermarkets. In other words, out of each 100 surveyed 32 boys said that they drank and 21 got their liquor from supermarkets or other off-licences. For girls the figures were 28 and 18.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord this question. The statistics that he quoted relate to shops and supermarkets. In the Bill are shops included or just supermarkets?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, both. The report also provided evidence that most adolescents in Scotland who buy alcohol appear to buy it unchecked and most of them from supermarkets. I cannot go into the details at this time of night; I wish that I could.
A working party on young people and alcohol was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She apologises for not being present; she would have liked to have spoken on her report but she had to be elsewhere. The report was published in 1987 and made recommendations in relation to under-age drinking. It noted that off-licences were cited as a major source of supply for teenagers and, in
210
particular, the self-service section of licensed supermarkets. The group recommended that the law should stipulate that all sales of alcoholic liquor should be made by, or at least effectively supervised by, persons aged 18 or over.
In November 1988 the Daily Record, a well-known Scottish newspaper, began a campaign for action to be taken against what it called "teeny tipplers". That campaign aroused countrywide support from the Scottish public. There was a tremendous amount of support for it. District councils took up the issue and joined in a campaign to persuade the Government to take positive steps to curtail drinking in public places as a crime prevention measure.
I ought to mention here in order to save time later that drinking in public places is the subject of consultation with CoSLA and the police about the possible introduction of by-laws. As far as I am aware, the Government are awaiting CoSLA's proposals as to where experimental by-laws might be introduced. That dealt satisfactorily for the time being—until we see the government proposals—with that aspect of the problem.
A great many examples were given of the social problems caused by under-age drinking and its attendant features, particularly in Committee in the other place. I should like to mention many more examples than is possible. However, to show the concern that was felt by Members of Parliament, I shall mention one example that stood out to me. It was mentioned by Dr. Reid who is the Member of Parliament for Motherwell, North. At col. 19 of the proceedings of the Commons Second Scottish Standing Committee on 10th May he said that a public meeting called to discuss the issue had been attended by 450 parents. It is a rare event nowadays, with all the other distractions, for a public meeting to be attended by 450 people. That fact alone shows the concern of those parents who attended a meeting organised by local councilors—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think it is probably incorrect that the noble Lord should quote from proceedings in another place. It would probably be better if he paraphrased what was said.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. I am in fact paraphrasing rather than quoting exactly.
As I said, Dr. Reid said that the meeting was attended by 450 people. That shows the importance attached to the subject and the concern felt by parents and expressed to their councillors in that part of Lanarkshire about what were becoming no-go areas between the hours of five and six o'clock at night—even, later at night, for grown men. Those people were not killjoys. They wanted to make sure that the balance of leisure activities was contained within a legal framework. The one does not preclude the other. That is only a brief illustration. There are many others that I could give about the concern felt by those people.
We are only too familiar with the relationship between crime and alcohol abuse. There have been scores of reports, documents and committees on the

211
matter. I shall not list them all. But according to one recent survey almost 66 per cent. of inmates in a Scottish young offenders' institution in 1980 said that they had committed their offences while under the influence of alcohol. A frightening thought about that statistic is that if that was the situation in 1980, how much worse is it now, given the increase in drinking generally, in under-age drinking in particular, and in all kinds of crime? It certainly frightens most people when they think deeply about it. There are many more statistics that I could quote to illustrate the extent of the problem in Scotland. I hope that I have said enough for the moment to establish the extent of the concern.
Against that background, in December 1988 Mr. Jimmy Hood, Member of Parliament for Clydesdale, introduced a Bill to deal with under-age drinking in public places. While sympathising with that Bill, the Government pointed out a number of flaws. Mr. Hood was persuaded to rethink his proposals. Because of the time limitation on Private Members' Bills—all parliamentarians understand that restriction—it was not possible to have wide consultation. However, consultation did take place with a number of people. The Government intimated support and the Bill now before us was introduced.
The Bill provides that, in any off-sales premises, sales of alcohol may be made only by or under the supervision of an adult person. It also provides that in any licensed premises with three or more till or sale points—call them what one will—the intending purchaser will require authorisation of the sale at a separate wrapping and pricing point manned by adults before proceeding to the check-out.
The first provision—that the sale of alcohol must be made or supervised by a person over 18—should not cause supermarkets or anybody else too much of a problem. Indeed, many of them already operate a similar procedure. I am impressed when I read about some of the practices that are in existence in some of these supermarkets. It was pointed out during the Committee proceedings in another place that this procedure itself is open to abuse by collusion between an under-age purchaser and a co-operative friend employed on check-out duties. That is not apparently unknown or even uncommon in some parts of Scotland. So the imposition of an additional check at the authorisation point makes such collusion that much more difficult. It does not totally abolish it, but it makes it more difficult.
Critics have said that the necessity to have the purchase authorised would cause great inconvenience and annoyance to consumers.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should be extremely grateful if the noble Lord would give way. He has touched on one of the points which cause me and I know some others a certain amount of anxiety. He said that the additional authorisation point would make it more difficult for adults to buy alcohol on behalf of juveniles. Could he explain why that should be so, compared with the position of a juvenile who wants alcohol and persuades an adult to go into the shop and buy it for him? It will be the
212
adult who gets the authorisation, and then when he goes out of the shop he will hand over the product to the juvenile. I think that the noble Lord owes it to the House to explain why the authorisation point will make that process any different at all except to add an extra stage.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, first of all I did not mention that point at this stage. I said that the procedure that exists now is open to abuse by collusion between an under-age purchaser and a friendly operator at the check-out. It is not the same point as that mentioned by the noble Lord, but it is the point that I am making. It makes it more difficult for that kind of collusion to take place if the under-age person has to be checked. He has not now to be checked but if he has to be checked in the future there will be less likelihood of that kind of collusion. And of course there will be the force of law with its penalties and so on to back that up. So it must be more difficult. Probably it will deter most under-age drinkers who have been getting away with this practice because of a friend. They will find that the friend will now lose his job and all sorts of complications will arise. That is the point that I was making. We may well come to the other point later on, but at this stage to save time I am bound to say that the fact that the adult has to be checked—and indeed the whole operation has to be checked—puts some kind of responsibility on those who do not have it now. There is the force of the law behind it and they know that it is there. Young people will be less inclined even to try some of the practices that they have attempted up to now. So I believe that there would also be some kind of restraint on those practices.
I was saying that the critics have said that the necessity to have the purchase authorised would cause great inconvenience and annoyance to consumers. I go on to say that I can understand that because I am one of those people who use supermarkets quite frequently. I could say too frequently because I do not like the chore of shopping, but I have to do it.
But why should it be more inconvenient or disruptive than the other special counters? We all know and use the special counters for cheeses, bacon, fresh meat or fish and a whole range of other items including, invariably, tobacco. All those commodities are dealt with at separate counters. One has to queue up and have one's purchases authorised. One has to ask for, say, 1¼ lb. of cheese, which is priced at £1·69 or so; a piece of paper then has a stamp put on it and it is clipped to the purchase, which must be taken through the check-out point. One has been authorised to purchase it at that separate counter. That happens now and I have never heard anybody complain about that course. In fact people like it. They like the choice. Most people at heart do not really like supermarkets and hanker after the old times when one could pick and choose and be served by an assistant. That was an aside; nonetheless people still like to choose from a selection of cheese, bacon or whatever. They like to be able to say, "I'll have half a pound off that piece".

213
So in my view there is no substance in the criticism that it will cause great disruption. What causes a great deal of disruption and complaint is that when customers reach the check-out there is a long queue. But six or seven checkouts are not manned for long periods of the week. Nobody is there. They complain about such queueing; and I think that they are quite justified.
I therefore could not see any basis for the criticism, especially in the context of the Scottish scene where we know the tremendous amount of support that already exists among the shopping public for the Bill and for the measures that are attached to these new procedures. I believe that the critics are wrong, and will be proved to be wrong.
There has also been some predictable opposition from trade interests. It was inevitable. They feel aggrieved. They say that there was no wide consultation and that this is an additional burden which will bring them no benefit but will increase their costs. People think hard when they hear of that objection. I have studied the Official Report of the proceedings in another place. There was no serious attempt to argue these points at any stage in those proceedings, although trade interests were represented throughout. It was generally accepted that the potential benefits that would accrue from the attempt to control the problem far outweigh any inconvenience. These interests were prepared to put up with any inconvenience and the small cost in relation to their turnover on alcohol. It seemed to have been accepted, however reluctantly.
The question of consultation has always been a problem, in particular on Private Members' Bills. One cannot produce a Green Paper, with a consultative period during the procedure on Private Members' Bills. It has never been possible. There has always been a difficulty on consultation. But the position is well understood, not only by us but by all those consultants who operate in the field—the PR firms and the researchers. It is a big industry. I have not seen these people lacking in this respect. Usually they are able to ensure that their interests are well stated and represented at all stages of a Bill.
I can honestly say that I have had no correspondence from anyone or any organisation, big or small. I have had nothing except one telephone call from Gateway asking for a meeting. I met representatives yesterday. We discussed the Bill. Although we did not reach complete agreement, at the end of the meeting I promised to take away some of the points that they raised and consider them between now and the next stage. That is the only approach that has been made to me by anyone. I am therefore inclined to consider that consultation did not worry these people too much.
My noble friend Lord Graham kindly showed me a letter that he had received from the Scottish Consumer Council. Probably some other Members have received this letter also. In it the council raised the question about lack of debate. On 6th July it stated:
"Moreover, there has been little or no debate about the details of the proposal. The Scottish Consumer Council only became aware of it two weeks ago".
214
Two weeks from 6th July takes us well into the third week of June. This Bill was presented to Parliament on 26th April. It had its Second Reading in the other place on 28th April. That is 10 weeks ago. It went through its Committee stages on 10th May. That is eight weeks ago. Here is a consultative organisation—a consumer council—which states in another letter that I have read that it is constantly on the look-out for issues that affect its members and consumers and that it never lets an opportunity go by without commenting. It heard about the Bill only two weeks ago; that is about eight or nine weeks after it was introduced in the Commons. It complains about lack of debate. I do not think that there is any substance in that complaint. In fact there is a question mark about the whole organisation, to my mind. If I were connected with it I should want to know why it had not heard about the Bill and why it had not carried out its function as a lobbying or a research organisation.
I am sorry that I cannot deal with any more correspondence because of the time, but as I have said, apart from Gateway, no other organisation has made any approaches to me. I imagine that the others have concentrated on selected Members of your Lordships' House. I understand that and am not complaining. I have not been selected; that is all; but it says something about the publicity industry generally.
However, although the trade has some reservations, most have now been accepted, as I have said, with some reluctance. The Bill has merit in its attempt to control teenage drinking and the trade is prepared to give the proposals a fair wind. The Bill had all-party support in another place; it has massive public support in Scotland. It had a great deal of positive newspaper and other media support, and it also has Government support.
I again refer to the Committee proceedings and the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. I am being careful in referring to his name so that I am not out of order, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will not be too vexed. The Under-Secretary of State gave it his wholehearted support. He even said that there were two simple points in support of the Bill. He welcomed it as a crime prevention measure. He regarded the Bill as a significant part of an overall package of measures, because there is a package of measures. I have mentioned another one, that the Government are in consultation about bye-laws. The Government have also announced their intention to bring in some licensing legislation in the next Session of Parliament. These things are all going on. There are constant discussions about the crime wave and so on. The Bill, according to the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office and the Government, is a very useful addition and,
"a significant part of the overall package."
In the view of the Scottish Horne and Health Department,
"the Bill is a useful measure in that context".
The Minister ended by giving the Government's unreserved support for the Bill and he congratulated the honourable Member for Clydesdale on it. He commended Clause 1 and hoped that it and the

215
whole Bill succeeded. I do not think I can add to those sentiments in a way that satisfies me. That will do me. I look forward to a useful and constructive debate. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Stallard.)
10.43 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think I probably speak for your Lordships' House when I say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for his explanation of the Bill. I do not have any quarrel with what he had to say and what the Bill attempts to do in terms of curtailing the purchase of alcohol or drink by under-age people. I do not have any complaint about any measure that goes some way towards stemming alcohol abuse. Indeed, the noble Lord will recall our very long debates in March 1988 during the passage of the English licensing Act. There is concern. What there has to be is a balance of concern and practicality. I will come to that in a moment.
It may be thought outside your Lordships' House somewhat impertinent of me to object or to become involved in a Bill the content of which is essentially a Scottish matter. But I submit to your Lordships that it is not only of concern in Scotland because of the 14,000 alcohol drink outlets in Scotland, but that just over 1,000 are affected by the proposals contained in the Bill. Those affected are mainly English multiples. It seems manifestly unfair that out of some 14,000 outlets fewer than 10 per cent. should be singled out for a piece of legislation.
I am advised by Messrs. Hill Brown, the specialist solicitors in Glasgow dealing essentially with licensing matters, that there is no great body of objection to supermarket applications. That is what we are dealing with in the Bill: supermarket sales premises with more than three sales points. Only in June this year a big national multiple was granted a licence, oddly enough, in the Clydesdale district court, without any comment, question or condition. Indeed, it was in the constituency of the honourable Member for Clydesdale who is promoting the Bill. That appears to be most odd because I understand that in Scotland the licensing boards are made up of locally-elected district councillors. Yet the application was granted without comment, question or condition.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to consideration in another place; just 100 minutes in the second Standing Committee. It was unfair of him to say that the Bill had its Second Reading in April. The Second Reading went through on the nod, as did every other stage other than the second Standing Committee. I must ask rhetorically: is it good enough to put forward a Bill which has not been accorded the opportunity of being discussed fully in another place? Is it fair that the honourable Member in another place should say, as he did, that there is no great objection and only the retailers are objecting?
Sadly, he said that before the Scottish Consumer Council issued its report and before its views were known. Those views are now known and the council
216
opposes Clause 1(3). It sets out its arguments fully and cogently in a widely distributed document. I shall not quote from it, but perhaps other noble Lords might. It is a very good document.
The Bill before us this evening assumes that supermarket wine and spirit sales are a primary source of liquor bought or consumed by those under age. The noble Lord draws in support a number of statistics which have been produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I do not quarrel with them. However, I draw your Lordships' attention to the only independent report on drink of which I know. It was published in 1985 by Exeter University. It identified the home, and not the supermarket, as being the primary source for the acquisition of drink. If I remember correctly, the tables put the supermarket fairly low down. Pubs, clubs and discos account for the largest number of under-age people acquiring drink.
Let us look at some aspects of the Bill in relation to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. Already the sale of alcohol in on-licensed premises with a bar must be by a person over the age of 18. The proposed legislation appears to ignore the separate off-sales department in a pub or hotel. Those off-sales may not be designated as special areas and that is in terms of Section 119 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. Whether or not designated, the Bill does not attempt to bridge the apparent gap created by those off-sale parts of pubs and hotels where the sale of liquor does not take place over the bar. It appears that the off-sales are not covered by the Bill and that such sales would not require any authorisation whatever. Therefore, there is a gap between these proposals and the existing law.
Another apparent omission in the proposed legislation is the wholesale purchase. A licence is not required to sell alcohol in wholesale quantities and, as no reference is made to wholesale quantities in the Bill, presumably such sales would continue to be unauthorised on non-licensed premises.
The new Bill introduces a step prior to the sale of alcohol in a supermarket or another place with more than three—and I quote the noble Lord—"till points or call them what you will". I shall return to that in a few moments. Again, so far as I can see, that does not affect the absolute offence and responsibility contained in Section 68 of the Scottish Act of 1976, which is not to sell liquor to a person under 18 years. Therefore, even if a sale is authorised, the authorised liquor could then be passed, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding attempted to say earlier, to a person under 18 years old and then it would presumably be the responsibility of the check-out operator or the person at the sales point, till or "call it what you will" point; I do not know. We must look at that if we reach a later stage.
Since the new Section 97B(1)(a)(i) uses the term "authorised", one assumes that there has to be a separate authorisation point or counter and I suppose that has to be manned by an authorising officer. Again, there is no link between this point and Section 68 of the Scottish Act to which I have already referred. I said that that Act already provides for the sale of liquor in licensed premises to or by persons under the age of 18 years to be an absolute

217
offence. Perhaps, in parenthesis, I may ask the question raised by my noble friend: should there be collusion between the would-be purchaser, because he is only the would-be purchaser at that stage, and the authorising officer or even later between the authorising officer and the sale point, cash point or "call it what you will" point, who is, or is anybody, guilty of aiding and abetting the wilful buying or attempt to buy alcohol? There is nothing in the Bill about that and the noble Lord opposite said nothing as regards that matter.
Everybody is reasonably happy about Clause 1(2). That refers to shops with more than three check-outs, till points, sale points or "call it what you will" points, which is fairly clear. The noble Lord opposite laughs but those are his words and not mine. That merely indicates that there is no definition in the Bill of what is meant by a "sale point". One is assuming a number of matters. I merely ask why the language in that clause, which we welcome, is different from Section 18 of the 1988 English Act.
Perhaps I may turn to the question of the sale point and ask what it actually is. Is that a cash register or at the check-out queue? Is it operative whether it is manned or not manned? Is it operative if it is a till that is plugged in or not plugged in? Must it be working or can it be out of commission? All those questions will have to be answered sooner or later because there is a gap in the proposed legislation.
Referring to Clause 1(3) again, when does a criminal offence take place? Is it when the product is selected from the shelf? Is it when the would-be buyer joins the queue at the check-out or till, or is it when the sale is made by the passing of cash? Is there a defence for a customer who inadvertently finds himself in that position and is charged with wilfully attempting to buy the product? The Bill does not say anything about that matter and I cannot trace anything about it. It seems to be manifestly unfair. Who decides when this criminal offence takes place? How will he or she decide? When will he or she decide? Whose responsibility is it—the licence holder, his employee, duly authorised, or his agent? Do they have any discretion? What are they supposed to do—make a civil arrest or call for the police? It really is a nonsense.
In the Second Scottish Standing Committee proceedings, these questions were asked: who has the duty to report the offence? Is there a defence for a licence holder who fails to report an alleged offence? Nobody in the Standing Committee—and I have read the whole 100 minutes of the proceedings—gave an answer to that. We need an answer.
I turn to a matter which has concerned this House on innumerable occasions—low alcohol products. The Bill unwittingly makes it more difficult to purchase de-alcoholised or low alcohol wines and beers because of the definition of alcoholic liquor. I shall not go into that matter now but may do so at a later stage. It strikes me that in our great endeavours—and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in 1988 gave encouragement to the wider distribution and sale of low alcohol and non-alcohol beverages—we shall block that.
218
There are only a thousand outlets or so in Scotland which will be so disbarred. The double queues argument to which the noble Lord opposite referred is a specious argument. If he looks across the whole range of technology that is being introduced into retail store operations, he will know that double queues are fast disappearing with the introduction of the bar scanning system for loose products as well as pre-packaged products. That is apparent, and as stores are up-dated and modernised the compulsory double queue is disappearing. One can opt in a store to buy a pre-packed item. The double queue argument is specious.
The problem of the illegal sale and purchase of alcohol by minors is a matter of concern to society, parents, licence holders, authorities and Parliament. However, I suggest that the need for adequate controls must not be allowed to cloud common sense. Clause 1(3) falls into this trap. It will establish a procedure patently fraught with difficulties, which will be ambiguous and burdensome to those who will have to operate it. I have tried to illustrate some examples. Sadly, it will have an insignificant effect on the problem. The Scottish Consumer Council described the Bill as a "guddle"—and that it is. I seriously urge the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and—dare I say it?—my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to think again about Clause 1(3).
11 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because my noble friend Lord Stallard has admirably outlined the purpose of the Bill in moving the Second Reading. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was a little unfair on the other place because the Private Members' Bill procedure there is very sophisticated. The fact that a Bill receives a Second Reading on the nod means that there is not one out of the 650 Members of Parliament who wishes to raise an objection. A Bill can only receive a Second Reading, on the nod if there is no objection at all. One Member shouting "Object!" is sufficient to block its further progress.
The fact that the Bill has been through the other place with Second and Third Readings on the nod should not inhibit us from discussing it on its merits. On the other hand, I agree that it is a more onerous responsibility on this House in terms of its revising and scrutinising function. My noble friend said that he was prepared to listen to suggestions for improving the Bill.
In terms of licensing laws Scotland has been ahead of England for some time. Indeed it would be a very unwise Englishman who did not concede that Scotland is ahead of England in many other ways as well. The Scottish licensing laws were liberalised in the mid-1970s and it is only recently that England has caught up. I hope that at a later stage it will be possible to consider, as the merits of the Bill become clearer, whether it can be extended to England through a fairly straightforward amendment.
I know that my noble friend will be receptive to suggestions for improvement as the Bill proceeds. I wish to congratulate him on taking on the promotion of the Bill in this House. I hope that it has a successful

219
passage and that it is improved in such a way that it gains support in all parts of the House as it did in the other place.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, when I first heard of this Bill I greeted it with enthusiasm because I recognise that teenage drinking is a major social evil in Scotland. Anything that is designed to curtail or limit alcohol consumption among teenagers is to be welcomed. Since the Bill reached this House I have received representations from the Retail Consortium, a large supermarket chain in Scotland and one or two other bodies in the retail distribution business.
I was not seriously affected by those representations. I was mindful of the experience of this House and of the pressure of the brewers in the last week or two. Therefore, I tended to say "All right, they are rather special interests who are pleading their case". But when I received a representation from the Scottish Consumer Council, a body for which I have the highest regard, I began to examine in greater detail the full implications of the Bill.
It is not enough to say that we are dealing with a major social evil. The question that this House has to answer is whether this major social evil will be seriously affected by the provisions of the Bill. It is easy for the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to say that there is massive support in Scotland for the Bill. Of course there is massive support in Scotland for anything that will limit teenage drinking, particularly when that support is whipped up by the most popular Robert Maxwell tabloid in Scotland which has adopted this as its cause. And which MP can resist the pressure of the Daily Record in Scotland?
In this House, however, we have a rather different task. We have to examine seriously whether the Bill will cure a social problem about which we are all concerned. I feel just as deeply about the problem of teenage drinking as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and Members of this House and of another place. I very much regret the terms of an interview given by Mr. Hood, the sponsor of the Bill, to the Glasgow Herald today in which he castigated the Scottish Consumer Council. He said:
"It appears that the hurried response of the Scottish Consumer Council in supporting big business interests indicates that the interest of the large supermarket chain is more important to the Scottish Consumer Council than the interests of thousands of young Scottish kids who are victims of alcohol abuse".
That is a distortion of the situation. The Scottish Consumer Council has played a prominent and admirable part in examining consumer legislation in Scotland in a detached and objective manner and is certainly not the product of the big business interests in Scotland. That is a complete distortion of its role. I hope that Mr. Hood will think again when giving interviews of that kind.
What does the Scottish Consumer Council say about the Bill? It has already been said that the legislation would affect only the larger shops and supermarkets with three or more points of sale. There is no evidence that the sale of alcohol to
220
minors is a significant problem in the larger supermarkets. As has been stressed, the teenage drinker can acquire alcohol at the disco or at some of the less reputable distributors. Between now and the next stage of the Bill I invite any Member of the House to go into any of the large supermarkets and test for himself whether he can get through the check-out with an under-age person buying alcohol. I have made that test myself; I find that control at the large and reputable supermarkets is taken seriously. I believe that the Bill attacks the wrong target. It attacks the large supermarket and ignores the small and less reputable distributors in the trade. To that extent the Bill is faulty.
Perhaps the Minister will confirm at a later stage tonight that the Government intend in the next Session to bring in new legislation affecting licensing in Scotland. It would be more appropriate to introduce this kind of measure within that new, legislation and perhaps devise something more effective in tackling this social problem. Anyone who visits large supermarkets—I used to be, but am no longer, in the supermarket business—will find that few minors line up at the check-out to buy merchandise. The Bill attacks the wrong target.
For those reasons I hope that our friends who wish to tackle this social evil will look again at the Bill and examine how far the real problem is being dealt with in the legislation now before us.
11.10 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should begin by declaring an interest as I speak as a non-executive director of Marks and Spencer. However, at this late hour I shall be brief in what I have to say. I agree with the points which have been made by my noble friend Lord Lucas and by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.
I should like to make just three points. The first and most important is that no one could quarrel with the purpose of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. In my life I have had a great deal to do with education, and I am well aware of the fact that today many teachers are extremely concerned about under-age drinking, and about children who have been able to obtain alcoholic drinks during the lunch hour and who come back to school unfit to take part in lessons. I am also aware of the concern of the parents and the public. Therefore, no one could quarrel with any measure which is designed to try to address that particular social difficulty which we face today.
My second point is that I unconditionally support the provisions in the Bill which seek to ensure that the sale of alcohol on off-sales premises should only be made by adults or under adult supervision. As I understand it, that would bring the law in Scotland into line with that which now operates in England and Wales. I think that it is a very useful measure and one which deserves support.
My third point—and here I very much agree with what has been said by other noble Lords—is that I am most unhappy about Clause 1(3). I have been greatly impressed by the evidence which has been produced by the Scottish Consumers' Association.

221
At this late stage there is not the time, nor would it be appropriate, to go through in detail the many points which the association has made. However, I shall touch upon three of them.
First, the legislation affects only larger supermarkets, and supermarkets with three or more points of sale. That is a very small proportion of all the stores which sell alcohol. In fact, there is no evidence to support the contention that it is in the larger supermarkets that alcohol is sold to minors, or that it is a problem. Indeed, it is quite the contrary.
The Scottish Consumers' Association has published most valuable statistical information showing that this is not the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, quite rightly made clear, this particular subsection is aimed at the wrong stores; it is the small shop where this situation is much more likely to take place.
Secondly, the legislation is quite impractical in relation to a large supermarket and really would not work. Thirdly, it would cause great inconvenience to customers because they would have to queue twice. Further, as the Scottish Consumers' Association makes quite clear, queueing is one of the things which customers most dislike and supermarkets make tremendous efforts to try to make their check-outs more efficient.
We would find ourselves faced with the absurd position where someone who was perfectly entitled to buy alcohol would be risking a very heavy fine through not having gone to an authorised point, and then going through the check-out point, and therefore is caught by the provisions of this Bill—whereas the young person who is most unlikely to be in a supermarket would not be affected.
Therefore I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will take a long hard look at this subsection as the Bill proceeds through its many stages. I think he said that he had not had the opportunity to talk to the retailers, but I hope that he will discuss with them these very real concerns. I am sure that they would be prepared to meet him and explain to him the real problems which they face and that this section of the Bill will not help on the one issue which the noble Lord wishes to address.
Perhaps I may conclude by putting a very important point. It would be a great pity if it were thought that somehow those who were against Clause 1(3) represented a group which had no interest at all in trying to deal with the problem of under-age drinking. Indeed, my experience shows that a great deal of trouble is taken rigidly to enforce the law as it stands in England and Wales and to ensure by training that everybody is well aware of the law; to ensure by notices that customers have the law brought to their attention and that there is a supervisor to whom they can appeal if there is any doubt about the age of a person purchasing alcohol. But also there is every possible interest not only in complying with the law but in complying with the spirit of the law. No one wants to see this very great social evil of under-age drinking helped in any way.
There is a great sense of responsibility. I can speak on behalf of Marks and Spencer, but that view would be shared by all the supermarkets affected by this.
222
It would be a great pity if it were thought that the case was otherwise. With those remarks, I hope very much that the noble Lord will look at this section again.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her to point out where in the Bill it is made a necessity on the part of the supermarket to have a separate authorisation point where a queue would form.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I understand it that is how this part of the Bill would have to work in order to achieve its objective.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, if I may say so, that is perhaps the imagination of the large stores at work. If the noble Baroness cares to look at Section 97B(2)(b), the only requirement is that the authorisation has to be made other than at a point of sale. The point of sale is obviously the check-out. Therefore there is no need to have any special expenditure in order to build 15,000 authorisation points.
Baroness Young: My Lords, at this late stage I do not wish to become involved in something which is clearly a point for the Committee Stage. In order to fulfil this section of the Bill it would be necessary to have some other point in order to make the situation quite clear. I do not think it would be right to take up the time of the House on Second Reading with considering precisely how that takes place. I am concerned only about the practicalities. I am quite certain that the noble Lord would not wish something to reach the statute book which would bring the law into disrepute because it was unworkable and would not deal wich the problem which both of us would like to see dealt with in an effective manner.
11.18 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, first I must apologise to the noble Lord for not being here at the beginning of his opening speech. I am afraid that it was largely due to the disorganisation of business which happened today.
Perhaps I may start by supporting what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has been saying. As I understood it from reading the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, the promoter envisaged that Clause 1(3) would work through authorisation points. I think that was made quite clear.
I agree with and wish to support everything that all the speakers before me—the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Lord Cocks and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young—have said. In addition I wish to point out that some youngsters get round the very stringent efforts made by the supermarkets to prevent them buying alcohol by getting an older friend to take the alcohol through the till. In the same way, if we have authorisation points, as I think the promoter of the Bill envisages, there will be nothing to prevent a 17 year-old getting an 18 year-old friend to get his bottle authorised and then having it back and paying for it at the till. The

223
onus will no longer be on the girl at the till to question his right to be buying it.
For these reasons and those given by previous speakers, subsection (3) will not have the beneficial effect that the sponsors of the Bill believe and hope that it will. I am afraid it will have an effect which I do not think they have seriously thought through. Certainly no one mentioned it in Committee in another place. I read the whole of the Committee stage carefully last night to check. I also checked the matter with my lawyer in Scotland this morning. The Bill creates a new criminal offence—that of wilfully buying or attempting to buy alcoholic liquor without the sale having been authorised.
Let us take the case of a busy person, perhaps a bachelor or a working wife, who is in a hurry, as busy people are, with many other things on his or her mind. It could be one of your Lordships or one of your Lordships' wives. He or she goes round the supermarket, picks up a bottle or two of wine or whisky, sensibly putting them at the bottom of the trolley lest the weight should damage other goods such as cakes and soft fruit, and then joins the queue for the till. At the bottom of the trolley, hey presto, there is the bottle. As I understand the matter, looking at the Bill, that shopper is guilty of a criminal offence and liable if convicted to a fine at level three on the Richter scale of fines which I understand these days is £400. Thereafter, he or she has a criminal record with all that that entails. That can affect a person's credit rating and possibly the chance to acquire a mortgage, a firearms certificate and other things.
The honourable gentleman who sponsored this Bill in another place stated in Committee on 10th May at col. 10 of the Official Report of another place that the Scottish public support the Bill and that that is proved by the response to the Daily Record campaign. There are a vast number of Scots who do not read the Daily Record. The first inkling my husband and my lawyer had of what was afoot was upon reading page two of the Press and Journal yesterday morning. The first inkling a great many other people had was when they read The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald today.
When the general Scottish public—I do not honestly believe that they have any idea of what is afoot—discover what is in store (or perhaps I should say what is in supermarket) for them they will be up in arms, and justifiably so. Apart from anything else they will be furious that a draconian and ill-thought out law which will have almost no effect on the evil which it is intended to cure should be foisted on them and not on England and Wales where the level of under-age drinking is far worse than it is in Scotland. And who will get the blame? The Government, of course, for no one will remember that this was not a government Bill. They will only remember that it was passed in the time of the present Government; and the government of the day will get the blame, as they always do—for the weather and every other evil which befalls.
I believe that if any action needs to be taken with respect to supermarkets the way to achieve what the promoters of the Bill want is to insist that all
224
supermarkets sell alcohol only in a shop within a shop, with a separate till, as do William Low and Presto in Scotland and Waitrose in England. That has the added advantage that if you only want to buy a bottle of whisky and are in a hurry you do not have to spend ages queueing at the general till behind people with trolleys piled high with household goods.
11.25 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when he said in moving the Bill, and giving a very full explanation of its contents, that a Bill which had had comparatively little debate in another place deserves very thorough scrutiny in this House. I was a little shocked when he told the House that the Bill had its unopposed Second Reading—no doubt on Friday—two days after it had been published.
I believe that part of the opposition that the Bill has run into has stemmed from the fact that it is permissible for a Bill to be published and debated in such a short space of time. The noble Lord gave the dates; I did not write them down but I think that they were two days apart. Part of the trouble is due to the fact that the Bill had its Second Reading in another place when virtually no one had had a chance to read it. I doubt whether more than a tiny handful, apart from the promoters of the Bill, were aware of what was in it when it had its unopposed Second Reading. I think that in those circumstances we have a duty to look at the Bill very carefully, and no doubt we shall wish to do so in Committee.
Perhaps I may point out to my noble and learned friend and my other noble friends on the Front Bench that the Second Reading of the Bill in this House started after ten o'clock in the evening. It is now half past eleven. The television cameras are already covered up. We are in danger (are we not?) of repeating the problems which the Bill ran into in another place, where it had less than a couple of hours' debate in a Standing Committee, by this House giving it a Second Reading at this time. I understand the difficulties of the business managers, but we are entitled to ask when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill would should be invited to discuss it at a more reasonable time of the day and that we should be under no constraints of time in order to do justice to the Bill.
I do not wish to repeat what other noble Lords have said about the Bill. I start from the fact that last autumn I was asked by the Economic and Social Research Council to chair a one-day seminar on the problems of under-age drinking. The seminar was set up in order to publicise some of the research work that had been done at a number of university centres with grants funded by the ESRC.
Reading the reports that had been published prior to that seminar, I was astonished to discover how prevalent under-age drinking has now become, and how overwhelmingly the drinking habit is acquired in the young people's own families.
It has now become acceptable in the family context for 13, 14 and 15 year-olds, by perhaps starting with half a glass of wine, to become more regular drinkers. There is a major social problem there. I do not need

225
to be persuaded of the need to try to make it more difficult for under-age people to acquire their own drink, whether or not drinking in the context of the family and with the supervision of parents.
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, my noble friend Lady Young and others who have made the same point that, in Clause 1(3), the Bill hits the wrong target. It does so for two reasons. First, the overwhelming evidence is that the young do not shop in large supermarkets. I am told by the Retail Consortium that fewer than 1 per cent. of the customers of large supermarkets for all products—not just for drink—are under the age of 18.
One will therefore see every purchaser of drink of whatever age, when trying to buy it at a supermarket with three or more check-out points, being subjected to the new procedure of queueing twice: first, to be authorised at somewhere other than the point of sale—the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, read out the clause that requires the authorisation point to be other than at the point of sale—and, secondly, at the check-out. I find it impossible to believe that, in order to attempt to check the tiny number of teenagers who buy alcohol at the larger supermarkets, it can be right to impose that substantial additional burden on the vast majority of supermarket customers who will have to go through that double procedure.
The second reason why the procedure will not work is that it immediately removes from the point of sale and from the check-out girl—that was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—the obligation not to sell drink to those under the age of 18.
I have been impressed by the evidence of the very clear and firm procedures for their check-out staff from many of the major supermarket chains. If there is any suggestion that an under-age person is presenting himself at the till with alcohol, the managers must always be called. If one attempts to off-load that responsibility on to someone else at some prior stage, one removes the obligation from where it primarily rests; namely, on the person who effects the sale at the check-out point.
Clause 1(3) entirely misses the target. My noble friend Lady Young made the point that, according to the evidence, it is at the smaller, perhaps less reputable shops and supermarkets with fewer than three tills that there are positive policies of being prepared to sell to under-age drinkers. They are the people exempted from the Bill, so one must ask: what is to be done about it?
We all support Clause 1(2). It makes the selling of alcohol through a sales assistant under the age of 18 an offence. Surely that provision should be carried into law. I hope that no one in the House will dissent from that. However, try as I might, I cannot see how Clause 1(3) can be rendered sensible as an additional safeguard. It hits the wrong target in a way that imposes enormous inconvenience on the vast majority of supermarket customers. I believe that it will be ineffective. As the Scottish Consumers Council recognises, by removing the obligation from
226
the salesgirl at the point of sale, it may make it easier for teenagers to obtain drink.
I therefore wish to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, his noble friends and perhaps the promoter of the Bill in another place that the right answer is more drastic reform. It may well be necessary, in fact, to await the results of the review which the Scottish Office has been undertaking into the licensing laws under the 1976 Act; to enact the Bill with Clauses 1(1) and 1(2); to drop Clause 1(3); and to recognise that it must be part of the Government's review to examine this and other possible alternatives and come forward with their proposals in the next session. Otherwise, it seems to me that there is a serious risk at this stage of the parliamentary year—we are virtually half way through July and it is thought that the House will recess at the end of July, and then have a modest and, I fear, rather overcrowded overspill in October—that even Clause 1(2) will not make the statute book when everybody would like it to do so.
So my suggestion is that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and his noble friends and honourable friends in another place might like between now and the Committee stage to ponder whether half a loaf is not better than no loaf at all. There is no doubt whatever that the comments of the Scottish Consumer Council on Clause 1(3) have a devastating force, not least coming from that source. Those comments very strongly reinforce the fears which have been widely expressed by the retail trade in Scotland. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will feel able to accept that he and his colleagues should ponder this question very carefully before the Committee stage.
11.36 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as one who has had a lifelong involvement in the youth work scene in Scotland and who is still currently involved in that scene, I do not need convincing of the alarming trends in young people's drinking that we are experiencing. I think that I would give a little more credit than many speakers have to the promoter of the Bill in another place and to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for the publicity which the Bill has brought to these problems, at any rate in part of Scotland. I think that the Daily Record campaign, too, has been beneficial in that respect.
The problem is not in question; it is the contents of the Bill itself, which have not had proper publicity, that we should be seriously considering this evening. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin that subsection (2) of Clause 1 is wholly welcome. It is important to tighten up the supervision of employees under 18 whose job is to sell alcoholic drink, wherever they are selling it. If a boy or girl under 18 wants to sneak in and buy a bottle of wine or can of lager, it is natural to pick a shop where there is a 16 or 17 year-old sales assistant, whether or not he or she is a friend, who might find a sale difficult to resist.
That part of the Bill is supported by the Scottish Consumers Council and by the large supermarket chains which have written to me. I believe that everybody wants young shop assistants who are

227
selling drink to have the backing of more experienced authorisation of the sale which will become mandatory under the Bill. That is wholly good.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, it is when we come to the next part of the Bill—subsection (3) of Clause 1—that I have doubts. As has been said, this part of the Bill is aimed not at small shops or small or larger supermarkets which sell drink at a totally separate counter. It is aimed at large supermarkets with three or more check-outs in which one selects for oneself a bottle of wine or sherry and, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has graphically described, takes it in the trolley along with one's other purchases and pays for everything together. What the Bill imposes on those of us who shop in those large supermarkets has been clearly explained several times in this debate, and of course I shall not go over it again. However, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that everyone who wants to buy a bottle of sherry or wine, however old, infirm or rushed he or she may be, will have to go to a separate authorisation point—separate from the check-out. If there is more than one person there it will become a queue. That is where the queue occurs. It will be a queue that is not voluntary, as it is if one goes to buy fish or cheese, but one which you will have to join because it is a legal requirement. Shoppers may also find, as the supermarket chains have told us, that the procedure is not only lengthy and a little risky but that it puts up prices in the supermarket.
People in Scotland are so worried about under-aged drinking that if the scheme in the Bill were likely to have a significant impact on the problem they might be prepared to put up with the extra nuisance and expense and having to remember to do the right things in order to buy their bottle of sherry. The supermarkets might well accept the extra work and costs. But will the scheme have an impact? Will it work?
Noble Lords have already pointed to the evidence that large supermarkets are the least likely place for young people to go. Those of us who shop in supermarkets know from our observations that one sees very few young people in them. Any noble Lords who are involved in Scottish licensing courts or who read the reports in the press will know that when large supermarkets apply for licences there is almost never an objection from the general public. I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made that point. The objections come in plenty when smaller shops apply, especially those small corner shops at the foot of high-rise flats or adjacent to housing schemes. That is what one would expect. It is the small shops where under-18s buy drinks, because it is more difficult for such shops to organise themselves to supervise every sale properly. The great bulk of offences are the result of sales, innocent or otherwise, in small shops.
Therefore the Bill is targeting the kind of shop where young people are least likely to try to buy drink. That being the case, is it right to ask every single customer of those shops to queue up an extra time so that a special person can look him in the face to see whether he might be under 18 years and,
228
if not, to authorise the bottles by a system of labels or stamps that can easily be dodged or abused? If anyone has any doubt about the matter, we should explore it at Committee stage. Is it right also to expect assistants at check-outs to be vigilant about their legal responsibilities in asking themselves whether customers are under 18 years when the bottles are assumed already to have been checked at a special authorisation point?
The Scottish Consumer Council is worried about this part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the promoter of the Bill in another place are clearly displeased. It has been suggested that the council is in the pockets of the supermarkets. I am not in anyone's pocket. I am simply a regular shopper. As a shopper I agree with the consumer council. I am sorry that it did not spot the detailed implications of the Bill earlier, but nor did I, and nor, I suspect, since nobody objected at Second Reading, did Members of another place. At the Committee stage, they discussed the problem of teenage drinking, not the details of the Bill. I was interested to hear that the clerk of at least one of Strathclyde region's licensing courts spotted the implications of the Bill only the other day.
I am sorry that up to now the Government have apparently supported the Bill. But the purpose of the House of Lords is to tell the other place and the Government when a Bill seems unlikely to work. I hope that that is what we shall do. I hope that we shall give the Bill a Second Reading because its first part is extremely good.
I hope at Committee to put down amendments and to support amendments by other noble Lords to alter or delete the part of the Bill which seems flawed. Should the Bill fail altogether I intend to press the Government, when they complete their review and bring forward legislation on the licensing laws in Scotland, to ensure that the problem of teenage drinking is confronted by them.
11.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I feel somewhat diffident in talking about a Scottish Bill, because although I am a Scottish Peer I am resident in England. However, I have a great deal of admiration for the way in which in Scotland, in the field of alcohol abuse, there is perhaps even more support for detoxification treatment than there is in England, particularly for young people. In this country I am a trustee of a foundation which runs two treatment centres for alcohol and drug addicts. It is one of the most alarming and saddening things to see the ever lower age of those who are admitted for treatment. As other noble Lords have said, I am absolutely behind the motivation for this Bill, somehow to attack the enormous evil in our society of the growth of under-age drinking and the misery that that causes.
Nevertheless, one of the points which several noble Lords have brought up is the fact that this Private Member's Bill should be introduced at this time. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing it this evening. I apologise for being several seconds late for his opening speech. I find it curious that the Bill is with us at this time, because

229
I understood that the Government have been taking a close look at the working in Scotland of the 1976 Act. I was expecting in the very near future some new innovative action to bring that Act up to date. I should have thought that Clause 1(2), which all noble Lords have welcomed and which I welcome, would have been part of that legislation, with suggestions for other better thought out methods of sale or purchase of alcohol by under-aged people in whatever outlets they choose.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe and with the noble Baroness Lady Young. I have an interest in where young people buy their drink and, in my observations from supermarkets in England, Wales and Scotland, it seems that the training and the steps that the large supermarkets have undertaken to make sure that young people do not get past the check-out, have been extremely responsible and effective. I have a particular knowledge of Marks and Spencer, with which the noble Baroness has a connection. There one can see the training that has gone into recognising people who are under age.
It would appear that young people are deterred from going into the large supermarkets because of the difficulty of purchasing drink there. They are more likely to have been funnelled into the smaller outlets. To that extent I agree absolutely that the Bill, although well intentioned, is aimed at the wrong target. The whole drinking scene has changed in this country over the past five years. There are various contributory factors to the growth of under-age drinking and the extent of under-age drink abuse. One must mention the decrease in family support for young people and the example set by parents in some areas of society.
When I had a daughter at school I was most shocked on one occasion. One of her friends, aged 11, returned from a half-term break with a bottle of vodka concealed in her case. It was undiscovered by the teachers. She shared it with another girl aged 11 in her dormitory, who was taken out of the school in a coma. The school did not know how to cope with the situation. Of course the girl received medical treatment. The two girls were rusticated for a week, which seemed to be extremely inadequate. Some kind of rustication should have taken place in respect of the parents. It appears that private-sector schools have inadequate ways of dealing with and advising young people when such sad events occur.
I was particularly interested in the remarks made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I entirely agree with her. I should much prefer to see shops within shops, because that is a more effective way of dealing with the matter. One can use well-trained personnel, and all the aspects of a shop within a shop achieve all that the Bill intends but in a better targeted way.
I am not a reader of the Daily Record as is my noble friend Lord Taylor. I understood from the tone of his remarks that the paper does not have a good reputation with him. However, one should welcome the organs of the press taking the line that they take about under-age drinking. In this country some of the papers do so admirably. Some papers which we criticise for the quality of their journalism in other aspects take a responsible stance in this area
230
and we should welcome that. After all, it is the culture of British drinking which must be partly responsible for the sad concentration among young people.
As yet no one has mentioned drinks advertising targeted towards young people. That area deserves much closer attention. There is too much advertising and people are getting round the standards. Advertising drinks for young people, whether on T-shirts, through subliminal advertising in cinemas or whatever, is extremely damaging to our efforts to counteract the trend.
Nowadays young people have more mobility. They travel around the place and can avoid the law more easily. I have noticed that in Scotland there has been an enormous increase in drinking among young women. I do not know why that should be so. Perhaps it is more frequently reported, but it is extremely worrying. We are all now well educated about drink. I am glad to see that the Brewers' Society has published informative and interesting pamphlets which inform people about the amount of alcohol they can drink. Young women are extremely vulnerable. In the treatment centres with which I am connected the young women are the saddest patients who are admitted. Often at the age of 16 or 17 they have reached a stage of advanced addiction.
Assuming that the Bill becomes law and subsection (3) is effective, who will police it? I cannot visualise many supermarkets taking somebody who had offended to a policeman, whether they had not gone to the right authorisation point or whether they had tried to pass alcohol to an under-age person or whatever. I wonder whether the supermarkets will not merely attempt to deter, to give warnings and to let the offender go in the hope that he will not return. He probably would not return, which would mean an even greater concentration on the smaller outlets. It is on that point with which I particularly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
That one should have to queue twice does not seem to me to make much sense. That is a cumbersome way of dealing with the problem, and I hope that the noble Lord and the promoters of this Bill can think of a less clumsy way of coping with that matter.
Having said that, I am sure that there are alternative or additional ways in which the Government and school institutions can raise the tempo of the fight against under-age drinking. After all, that end has been achieved as regards smoking. I know that young people are more resistant in regard to the campaign against smoking. However, a change of culture seems to me necessary rather than taking a particular measure against supermarkets. The reputable, larger supermarkets seem to be the target of this Bill in Clause 1 (3). That seems to me inappropriate. I have seen a number of supermarkets throughout the country, and I am satisfied that they look after that area extremely well. I hope that that will be taken on board I hope that this Bill does not reach the statute book because if it does, I believe that we may come to regret it.
11.57 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, initially I put on record my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Stallard for introducing this Bill. Up to this point, we have had an interesting and valuable debate on what is behind the Bill and how it would be operated if it became law.
It has become clear in the course of this debate that the Bill is heading for a Committee stage. If that is so, then I have reason to believe that the future of the Bill will be seriously jeopardised, and the likelihood is that it will not pass into law in any shape or form. That is a matter of serious concern to the people of Scotland who are interested in reducing the access by young people to alcohol, whether from a small shop or supermarket.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned that Clause 1(3) would only apply to 1,000 out of 14,000 outlets. I noted that he did not define what he meant by an outlet. Is that 14,000 small shops or a mixture of small shops and supermarkets because, if regarded as a single outlet, a supermarket may be the equivalent of 10 small shops. Accordingly, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, on the face of it, was not comparing like with like. No more is it helpful to take the research of Exeter University and apply that to what is happening in Scotland. We have our own particular problems in Scotland and it is to those problems that this Bill has been addressed.
There has been much said by Members of your Lordships' House about separate authorisation points. Indeed, that seems to be the centre point of arguments against the practicality of the Bill being brought into operation. For myself, I appreciate that in another place it was said and envisaged that there may be a separate authorisation point, but the Bill does not require that. The proposed new Clause 97B(2)(b) requires that the sale should be approved. It reads:
"Subject to subsection (3) below, the sale of alcoholic liquor is authorised for the purposes of this section if a person appointed for that purpose by the licence-holder, his employee or agent"—
in other words, there are three categories of people who can authorize—
"being reasonably satisfied that the person seeking authorisation is aged 18 or over, approves the sale";
and paragraph (b) states:
"does so"—
that means "approves the sale"—
"other than at a point of sale."
There could be a system in a supermarket where no separate point is required to be built. Members of staff over 18 years of age can be the approved agents of the owners of the supermarket for approving the sale on the floor. To envisage one way of dealing with it, a person could go to an identifiable member of the staff and ask for the approval to be put on the particular—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Is he seriously suggesting that rather than having—as the Bill appears to provide—some designated point where they can queue and be authorised, customers have to go chasing round the shop to find somebody who is over the age of 18
232
and say that they are authorised purchasers? If so, he is digging a very large hole for his noble friend's Bill.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the noble Lord is stretching my suggestion beyond the area that I am envisaging. It is easy in large shops to identify members of staff. Emphasis has been placed on the expense and the building up of a queue by those with the supermarket's interests at heart, but they are exaggerating the problem. They are creating a problem that does not need to exist in the operation of this Bill. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that there has to be a separate authorisation point. All that has to be done is for the sale to be approved before it reaches the point of sale. There is no reason why members of staff should not do that. It is for the supermarkets to put their own house in order. If they wish to build a separate authorisation point and create queues—
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? How is the purchase going to be authorised before it reaches the point of sale?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, there are various ways in which it can be authorised. For example, a suggestion was made that a piece of sticky paper could be attached or a rubber stamp used to mark the bottle. In that event the person has an approved sale within the store. I do not want to get bogged down in the technicalities of this matter. It is for the stores to work that out if the Bill becomes law.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I do not think that he should get away with that. Where is the customer going to find the sticky label? How is the customer to know where to find it if it is not going to be at the authorisation point? The noble Lord cannot get away with that.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the sticky label is only one suggestion that has been made. Members of staff would have access to it. All one has to do is identify the member of staff and ask for him or her to approve the sale, and it is done either by a sticky label or a stamp. That does not seem to be an insuperable difficulty.
The Bill has received all-party support in another place. I respectfully suggest the Bill should receive the same support in your Lordships' House. It has been criticised for leaving out small shops in so far as the authorisation procedure is concerned; but it catches the small shops in Clause 1, which has not been subjected to any criticism, in that the person selling alcoholic liquor will need to have persons over 18 years of age supervising the sale. It goes without saying that to have an authorisation point in a small shop, perhaps run by one man and his son or daughter, would be ludicrous because the customer is under immediate supervision in any event.
This Bill is the result of a long campaign run by the Daily Record newspaper and perhaps the Glasgow

233
Evening Times. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested that that was not a well-thought-of newspaper. I do not carry any brief for the Daily Record, though I must declare an interest in that I worked for it many years ago. I understand that it has a circulation of 650,000. If one assumes an average family of four we are talking of about 2 million people behind this campaign—at least nominally. The people of Scotland are looking carefully to see how this matter is dealt with in your Lordships' House. If the Bill falls in your Lordships' House, that will be noted.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I do not comment on the quality of a tabloid like the Daily Record. But does the noble Lord believe that such a newspaper will present the arguments produced in this House concerning the detail of the Bill rather than mounting a campaign against teenage drinking in general? Everyone supports the campaign, but what we are discussing is the detail of a Bill and examining it in an objective and less emotional manner than it is presented in the Daily Record.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's view on the matter. I am saying that the Daily Record has sparked off the interest which has resulted in the presentation of the Bill. Of course one does not expect a tabloid to go into the minutiae of it. I suggest to your Lordships that the second part of the Bill is aimed at the supermarket because it is there that the devious purchaser can best hope to get away with the purchase of alcohol, in contrast to the small shop, where he may very well be known to the shopkeeper.
In any event, I believe that there is a miguided approach to the subject by some of your Lordships. No one is pretending that the Bill is going to cure anything or that it will make a significant impact. All that it is setting out to do is to tackle part of this very serious problem that we have in Scotland.
Much has been said about the small shops. Not so long ago we had a problem with shops selling glue kits to young people. It took a great deal of work on the part of the legal authorities finally to prosecute people who were selling them. The High Court in Scotland created a new crime to enable people who were doing so to be prosecuted. As regards older people getting liquor for younger people, there are persons, for example, who are stupid enough to buy a bottle of whisky and give it to a 14 year-old child. They might very well find themselves in the same situation as the people selling glue kits to youngsters of that age. But that is another matter which is not immediately before the House.
I speak with the experience of over 25 years in the civil and criminal courts of Scotland. Drink is almost invariably the common factor in crime and spans all ages and classes. When it brings ruin to a young life, and sometimes brings death, and when violent crimes are created, it is a major blot on society. Anything that can be done to lessen the access of young people to alcohol at an early age should be welcomed by your Lordships' House. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has indicated,
234
consumption at an early age is habit-forming and to some extent it is apeing adult behaviour.
Society accepts alcohol as a legitimate social pastime and in moderation it may do good. In excess it does evil and mischief to society. We have a duty to ensure that it does not get into young hands at the stage when young people are physically and mentally unable to cope. As we all know, it is hard enough for adults to cope with alcohol. As the noble Viscount indicated, putting it into its social context, we are living in an age when young people are bombarded by the media with the delights of drinking. It is socially acceptable. Just as advertising for the services ignores the fact that by joining them you might get killed, so advertising for alcohol ignores the pitfalls of its use and abuse.
In sport we have the ridiculous picture of major clubs and tournaments being sponsored by brewers, with their logos being carried on the club jersey. Children are found on the streets of Scotland, and no doubt on the streets of other towns, and in play parks as walking and running adverts for alcohol and wearing their favourite team's jersey, which usually has to be the latest edition that they pressurise their parents to buy. The psychological pressures to experiment and to try drink build up, perhaps subconsciously, but they are there through advertising and adult example.
To some people the supermarket is a boon for shopping but to others it is a menace. I regard it as a striking example of what Robert Burns called man's inhumanity to man. It is a place that I take great care to avoid if possible. Whatever view is taken on supermarkets, they cultivate the art of enticement and the commercial seduction of the shopper. Everything on the shelves must be made attractive to the shopper to encourage his or her willingness to buy.
Drink has insidiously crept into the main shopping areas and has therefore become a ma in selling item. It is not surprising that young people want to buy and try. Others who have tried drink may want more and will go to great lengths to get it. The supermarket perhaps represents the best chance of not being spotted, particularly on a busy day when a young check-out assistant who puts the bar code through the machine does not have the time or the interest to check. That is why authorisation,It another part of the shop is important.
We all know that young people are maturing earlier these days and that it is not always easy to gauge the person's age. That is why it is important to have adult supervision to ensure that young people do not have access to alcohol as and when they wish. That is why the prior check is needed.
The reaction of the larger shops is, to say the least, rather over the top. Phrases such as "enormous disruption and annoyance to customers" and "imposition on and inconvenience to customers" are being used. They exaggerate the problem facing supermarkets, which undoubtedly use alcohol as an enticement to get a person onto the premises. Only two days ago I heard of a shop—this story is anecdotal—where one has to go through the licensed part to reach the main shopping area. If that is

235
happening, there must be proper control over young people going into supermarkets.
The Bill would make the supermarket a no-go area for the devious purchaser of alcohol. One wonders why alcohol has crept onto the shelves. I agree with noble Lords who suggested that perhaps the best plan for supermarkets would be to operate under the terms of new Section 97B and have the shop within a shop. The facility is there if they want to use it. If they want to have alcohol on sale in the main part of the shop, they must accept the restrictions that go with that.
I cannot see any sensible adult in Scotland objecting to the minor inconvenience of having a bottle or a purchase stamped prior to going to the check-out if it assisted even a little towards the lessening of this problem. It happens already in supermarkets. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. Before purchasing goods in a supermarket people are directed to authorisation points for cheques and credit cards. The public does not complain about that. People queue up quite willingly.
Alcohol is a poison. It is high time it was recognised that selling alcohol is a privilege which should be exercised with great care. I have no doubt that supermarkets do their best to do that but mistakes will be make. Alcohol poisons the mind. It poisons the judgment, it can lead to untold misery and it can have disastrous effects on health, particularly among young people. If society is to license the sale of poison, it should be properly controlled. We go to great lengths to control drugs, from cannabis upwards. I cannot see why people should object to reasonable steps being taken through this Bill to control the sale of alcohol to young people.
The Bill may be criticised for its wording, and all kinds of imaginary prosecutions can be envisaged. But I remind the noble Baroness who referred to the inadvertent purchase that the word "wilfully" appears as an essential part of that type of behaviour. We like to think that a little common sense is applied to prosecutions. We can all imagine situations that may be initially embarrassing. One hopes that the application of common sense would ensure that there would be no prosecution in appropriate cases. Accordingly, I support the Bill.
12.15 a.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government's stated objective is to seek means of closing off avenues through which alcohol is supplied to young people who are under age. The noble Lord who introduced the measure is absolutely right in saying that there is very widespread concern in Scotland regarding under-age drinking. Indeed, as he suggested, that may be best evidenced by the "tiny tipplers" campaign run by the Daily Record, whether or not that newspaper finds favour with all noble Lords.
However, that is not the only source from which one can ascertain that there is concern. For example, when the Government sought representations on the various aspects of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976,
236
without request being made over 70 community councils and individuals responded on this very issue. Therefore, I say to noble Lords that it would be wrong to under-estimate the degree of concern which exists about the general problem. I accept, however, the noble Lord's point that we have a particular provision here with which we must deal.
The Government had hoped that this Bill would be a significant step towards the achievement of the goal of cutting off the avenues. By tightening controls on the sale of alcohol and thus restricting its availability to young people it is hoped that it will be more difficult for them to acquire it and that such measures will serve to reduce the anti-social behaviour and, I regret to say, crime which is often associated with under-age drinking. That, in itself, imposes a substantial burden upon law enforcement, health and social work agencies.
As this interesting debate has developed this evening, many statistics have been bandied about and, not for the first time, one's conclusion depends upon which statistics one looks to. Perhaps I may try to strike a balance by saying that if one looks to the OPCS report of 1986—which has already been referred to—Table 217 shows that as regards 14 year-olds 21 per cent. of boys and 18 per cent. of girls who said that they bought alcohol usually did so through shops and supermarkets. However, for reasons which I do not understand, if one then looks at the column in respect of 17 year-olds, the relevant figure for boys has dropped to 12 per cent. and that for girls has dropped to 4 per cent.
However, before I suffer any intervention on that aspect, I readily accept that the OPCS report deals only with a classification of shops and supermarkets. Moreover, there is no attempt in the report to subdivide the types of shops or supermarkets and certainly not to subdivide them to deal with a supermarket which has three or more sales points.
In another place the Government supported the Bill in principle and in detail, as your Lordships have heard. But, in the welter of criticism which there has been in regard to Clause 1(3) in the course of this evening's contributions, I have noted that there has not been a single word of criticism of the measure contained in Clause 1(2)—that is, the new Section 97A.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Young, Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Jenkin for being emphatic and unequivocal in their welcome for that particular provision of the Bill. It would be most unfortunate if the message went from this House that what is a very welcome and sensible measure in England and Wales is not to be extended to Scotland.
Of course, any legislation which we introduce cannot be foolproof. However, we can, and do, encourage and educate. We seek to point young people towards a healthy lifestyle. But that message will only carry conviction if we who have responsibility for legislation have done all that we can to constrain those who want to drink and if we can constrain them and set their opportunities within a tight legislative control.
At the same time, however, we must seek to ensure that the controls which we impose are sensible and

237
no more than is required to achieve the ends at which we aim. I had hoped that before this debate began your Lordships would immediately accept that what is contained in the Bill does not step beyond that. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that there has to be a balance between proper concern and practicality. The question is only this. Where does that balance lie? I should have hoped that what is on the face of the Bill at the moment might have met with noble Lords' approval. But I acknowledge that a substantial volume of letters has been received from traders and traders' organisations who are worried about the possible impact of the controls.
However, the measures proposed are, it is believed, no more than is necessary to achieve a real and effective barrier to the purchase of alcohol products by under-age customers. I cannot disguise that many remain unhappy since they feel that the voluntary controls that are already in place are sufficient. I pay tribute to those supermarket chains and organisations which have, without the compulsion of a legislative requirement, already put in place certain voluntary controls.
I know that a number of such organisations are concerned that the authorisation requirement imposed by the new Clause 97B would involve additional cost and inconvenience to customers. We are given to understand that the requirement for a separate area for authorisation of sales would result in an average non-recurring cost to stores of about £13,000 to £14,000 and that the additional staff costs might amount to something like £25,000 per annum for the average supermarket caught by this provision. While these amounts are not negligible, neither are they excessive when measured against the average store's turnover in alcohol products of around £1 million annually.
I have indicated that I recognise that the restrictions of the nature proposed are not welcome in some quarters, but I hope that those who have put forward their objections to what we support will recognise that we are trying to achieve a measure of proper social responsibility. The Scottish Consumer Council, at a late stage—and I make no criticism of that—have entered this debate. I think it was my noble friend Lord Jenkin who described it as an intervention of devastating force. Perhaps I may make it clear that I certainly would not accuse the Scottish Consumer Council of being in anyone's pocket. Indeed, there are occasions when I wish it was. For that reason, I am not surprised that the representations that it has made have impressed a number of your Lordships.
I do not wish to engage at this time in any detailed analysis of what the council had to say. But I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, about the observation it makes with regard to the "forgetful grandad" who buys his can of McEwan's and fails to get it properly authorised. The suggestion is that, simply by arriving at the point of sale he commits an offence. I shall go away and look at the drafting again, but on the face of it I do not see that he has committed an offence there. It would be a wilful attempt to purchase without the authorisation that would be an offence.
238
The provisions proposed are no more than a socially responsible government would support and I believe they would have at most a limited impact on the average store's turnover.
As regards the contributions from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, as I understood them, both were more inclined to support the concept of a shop within a shop as concerns alcohol products. That might be a way forward. However, if the figures I have mentioned with regard to the cost of what is proposed in the Bill are considered to be great, I have little doubt that those who run supermarkets would find that to adopt instead the shop within a shop concept would cost significantly more.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, made a good point. It is unfair to criticise the promoter of the Bill in the House of Commons for his failure to have a Second Reading debate. I commend him for his political skill in managing to get it through the House of Commons without a single voice expressing objection. I do not think that therein lies a valid ground for criticism, and there was only a short debate in the Scottish second Standing Committee. Nevertheless, I trust that at any further stage in this House we shall treat this Bill in the constructive manner that it properly deserves.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, thought he saw a way through our difficulties by reminding the House that there appeared already to be an indication from the Government that there would be some future opportunity for the matter to be more sensibly considered. He is certainly correct to the extent that the Secretary of State for Scotland in a parliamentary Answer has indicated that there are a number of provisions within the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 which he would like to amend. In the time honoured phrase, he will introduce them when an appropriate legislative opportunity presents itself. The noble Lord will appreciate that he will get nothing more from me on the date of that.
I conclude by saying that although there might be, at some future date, a further amendment of the 1976 Act, it would be wrong of this House to fail to treat this Bill with the greatest care and concern. That care and concern has been shown in all the contributions that have been made this evening. I only urge that at any further stage the same careful scrutiny be given to it.
12.26 a.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, we have had an exceedingly interesting debate, albeit a bit truncated. I do not suppose noble Lords would expect me at this time of night to be able to reply to all the points that have been raised in the course of this debate, without at least studying the report of the proceedings in the Official Report tomorrow. I intend to do that.
I hope I shall be able to be in touch with the normal channels to see whether some arrangements can be arrived at that might smooth out the further progress of this Bill. To me it is imperative that it gets onto the statute book as soon as possible. We

239
owe it to the people concerned to do everything we can to facilitate its progress. I shall do my part, and I hope I can rely on others to do theirs.
There is not a great deal between us on this matter. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He expressed the matter a great deal better than I could ever hope to do, but he has said all that really needed to be said about the general approach to this matter. We all agree on the need for more education, better legislation and other matters, but we cannot do all that in a Private Member's Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in the only real point one has to make, laid great stress on the timetable in another place and the timetable in your Lordships' House today. But that is nothing that can be laid at the foot of the promoter or on the Opposition in another place. If he is criticising the Government's management teams in both Houses, I cannot reply to that or get involved in it. However, there was a clear and quite unambiguous criticism of the way the matter has been handled by the Government so far. I am only too pleased that the Government have supported the Bill and maintained their support in your Lordships' House tonight. I look forward to the constructive discussions we shall have on the next stages of the Bill. I end by asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
12.30 a.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the order is to bring together in one place, without any change in the law, the enactments relating to the limitation of time. The Statute of Limitations (Northern Ireland) Act 1958, the principal legislation, has been amended on a number of occasions, notably in 1976, 1982 and 1987.
I should add that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has considered the draft order and reported that it is satisfied that it is purely a consolidation measure. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the order. He has had a long innings today but is still batting powerfully.
As the noble Lord said, this order is a consolidation measure. No doubt there are good reasons why the limitation should be three years, or six years or nine years, but I shall not ask him to explain why that should be so. I am sure that this order will prove very helpful to the practitioner in Northern Ireland and we welcome it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Solicitors (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before your Lordships makes various amendments to the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, the legislation governing the education, training, conduct and discipline of solicitors in Northern Ireland.
The solicitors order gives the Law Society of Northern Ireland extensive powers of control over the solicitors' profession in Northern Ireland. But in the years since the enactment of the solicitors order the Law Society has found that the powers granted by that order are in some cases insufficient to enable it to regulate the solicitors' profession in the best interest of the public and solicitors in Northern Ireland generally. The Government concur with the Law Society's view and accept that a number of amendments of the solicitors order are necesssary in order to enable the Law Society to exercise proper and more effective control over the conduct of solicitors in cases where that is necessary.
The order also deals with some other matters. It increases the role of the Lay Observer for Northern Ireland, who monitors complaints against solicitors, and it introduces lay participation for the first time into the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and into the committee of the Law Society which handles complaints. These measures are important to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of complaints and disciplinary procedures in relation to solicitors.
Having outlined the purpose of the order, I turn to its main provisions. Articles 5 and 6 increase the Law Society's control over the issuing of solicitors' practising certificates. Article 5 adds to the circumstances in which a solicitor might be refused a practising certificate. Article 6 adds to the Law Society's powers to impose terms and conditions on practising certificates. Terms and conditions may be imposed which extend also to subsequent practising certificates issued to a solicitor so as to require the solicitor to take steps to become more efficient in his practice. A practising certificate may be suspended where the Law Society exercises its statutory powers of intervention under the solicitor's order.
Article 9 clarifies the Law Society's powers of control over the education and training of those seeking admission as solicitors and for the first time allows the Law Society to control the continuing education and training of qualified solicitors. Article 10 allows the Law Society to provide in regulations for the running of solicitors' practices as bodies corporate.
Article 16 enables the Law Society to impose sanctions in the interest of the client where a solicitor has provided inadequate professional services. This may take the form of a refund of costs to the client or a rectification, at the expense of the solicitor, of any error or deficiency. To facilitate the investigation of complaints, the Law Society will have express power to require a solicitor to produce files and documents in his possession.
Article 17 increases the role of the lay observer by giving him express power to examine any written allegation from a member of the public about the Law Society's treatment of complaints and provisions made for the publication reports. The lay observer will also be able to refer certain matters to the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal with a view to the imposition of sanctions for inadequate professional services.
Article 18 reconstitutes the present disciplinary committee as the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal, so emphasising that it is a statutory tribunal, independent of the Law Society. It will have lay members appointed to it for the first time and, in addition to its present powers, will have new powers to impose sanctions for inadequate professional services and to exclude a solicitor from legal work or to reduce or cancel his costs in respect of such work.
The order contains provisions intended for the better regulation of the solicitors' profession in Northern Ireland in the interests of the public, and, indeed, in the interests of solicitors in Northern Ireland generally. The legislation was brought forward in close consultation with the Northern Ireland Law Society and has been generally welcomed by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing so clearly the provisions of the order. I am pleased to learn from the Northern Ireland Law Society that it was the society itself which took the initiative that led to the new order. The Northern Ireland Law Society welcomes the order and wants to lose no time in getting it duly sealed and delivered. I shall therefore not delay its passage for more than a minute or two.
The order touches on about 26 topics, but, out of that variety, I believe that the most important articles for the solicitor and his client are Articles 14 to 20 which deal with the investigation of complaints against solicitors and disciplinary proceedings. I am assured by the Law Society that they are acceptable to the society and its members, but it is equally important that they should bring comfort to the clients. I say that without striking a sceptical note. I believe that the Minister has already confirmed that the department consulted consumer interests in Northern Ireland in the course of preparing the order. That is reassuring.
There is just one point that I must make before resuming my seat. I should like to pay tribute to the 1,200 solicitors and their staff in the Province who practise their profession. They too play a significant role in difficult times to maintain law and order. We recall with sadness that a member of the Northern Ireland Law Society who was a courageous advocate paid the ultimate penalty not so many months ago. Having paid that tribute, I simply reiterate that we welcome the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may add my tribute to the solicitors and all who work for them. We recognise all the good work that they do in very difficult conditions, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
12.38 a.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as is normal with orders of this nature, the order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It authorises additional expenditure of £294 million by the Department of Economic Development for purposes connected with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc. Noble Lords may wish to refer to paragraph 3 of page 5 of the Northern Ireland summer supplementary estimate 1989–90 which is available in the Printed Paper Office. That supplementary estimate explains that increased expenditure of £294 million is partly offset by the receipt of £30 million from the sale of the company's shares.
Your Lordships will appreciate that, unlike the main estimates for Northern Ireland which were approved by the House on 26th June this year, the draft order before us this evening deals only with expenditure in connection with Short Brothers plc. Noble Lords who were present at the debate on 26th June may recall that I explained that the disposal of Shorts would require substantial further amounts of government funding over and above the £5·3 million for Shorts which is already included in the main estimates for the current year 1989–90.
Your Lordships may also recall that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced on 7th June this year the details of the financial package agreed with the Canadian company Bombardier for the sale of Shorts. The £294 million being sought this evening relates to the second part of that package, the first part being the £390 million loan made earlier this year, which was included in the Northern Ireland spring supplementary estimates for 1988–89.
Of the £294 million that is before us this evening, £275 million will be used to recapitalise the company, to repay remaining borrowings and to meet anticipated losses on existing contracts. We intend that at least £60 million of this sum—that is the £275 million net—will be in the form of an interest free loan. That loan will be subject to full or partial payment if Bombardier fails to abide by the detailed and specific performance-related requirements of the loan agreement. Also, in order to encourage investment in research and development, the loan agreement will provide for progressive cancellation of the loan if certain specific targets relating to research and development and capital expenditure are met.
The remaining £19 million that we are seeking will be used first of all to provide financial assistance for the capital investment and training programmes to be undertaken during this financial year by Shorts under its new ownership, and, secondly, to meet the fees of the Government's professional advisers.
The Government also intend to provide grant aid of £91 million toward Shorts future capital expenditure and training programmes, totalling some £216 million in the period 1990 to 1993. This last sum is not covered by the order that is before us this evening and the approval of your Lordships' House will be sought for this in due course.
Your Lordships will appreciate that at the point of sale it will be necessary to assess the losses incurred by Shorts since 31st March 1989. That figure will be added to the cost of sale. The funding requirement to meet these losses will be met in the first instance by an advance from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund, and this will be repaid in due course through a supplementary estimate which will be brought before your Lordships probably in the autumn of this year.
I want to conclude by saying that Shorts now faces one of the most exciting and challenging periods in its history. The proposed expenditure before us this evening will ensure that it is returned to the private sector with a capital base that will enable it to face the future with confidence. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House certainly appreciate, understand and approve what the Minister has brought before us today. Both my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and I have been present on previous occasions when the whole anxious future for Shorts—which concerns the future of the people not just of Belfast but of all Northern Ireland—was the subject of great concern on the part of the Minister and his ministerial colleagues. I think he understands that we also share his anxiety.
In effect, we have been presented with the authorisation for tapping some of the moneys which he advised would be required when the financial package came before the House. Certainly we are minded to say that this is proper and is needed.
Can the Minister help me on one point? I think that he mentioned £91 million for training. Can he tell us whether it is the normal training which would be conducted by a large organisation such as Shorts in respect of its engineers or draughtsmen undertaking basic training programmes or is there anything special about the training facility that would be made available? If the Minister is unable to answer that I shall understand.
In the schedule there is a matter to which he did not refer: the development of tourism. Would the Minister care to say something about that? As well as referring substantially to aircraft and shipbuilding industries, there are other matters in the schedule that I should have liked to have taken up had there been time. Can the Minister tell me what is involved in the phrase "the development of tourism"?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I congratulate the two noble Lords on their stamina. They have sat throughout the heat of debate.
I do not know what is referred to in "the development of tourism", the gross provision and the net provision, and the appropriations in aid of precisely £1,000. Normally these sums shown as £1,000 tend to be in the schedules and in the appropriation orders to show that there has been a contra entry in the payments. It looks as though there has been a very small appropriation in aid. Quite rightly, the noble Lord has pointed out that the net provision is only £1,000, down from £6.106 million to £6.105 million.
I shall obtain an answer and write to him on why that sum on tourism appears in an order which I presented to your Lordships as being exclusively dealing with Shorts.
The £91 million about which the noble Lord asked is the sum which we shall be spending on training. However, I pointed out that this would be over the next three years, between 1990 and 1993. This is how we shall envisage the funds being spent. But we think that it will be necessary, and it would be normal in financial restructuring of this type over the next three years. Indeed, the sum that I have over the next three years for training with regard to government support is nearer £12 million. I shall obtain the precise answer for which the noble Lord is searching.
My stamina may be failing slightly this evening. I shall certainly find out and write to him. However, I am grateful for the attention that he has paid. I shall draw his perspicacity to the attention of the chairman of Northern Ireland Tourist Board, who I know will be grateful for the attention paid by your Lordships at this late hour. I think that it would be the wish of your Lordships that I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sheffield Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989
12.48 a.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lods, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. With the leave of the House, your Lordships may find it convenient if I speak at the same time to the 10 other orders also in my name on the Order Paper.
The 11 orders that we are considering this evening vest around 207 hectares of publicly owned land in six urban development corporations. The House may find it helpful if I briefly explain some of the background to these orders.
As your Lordships will know, urban development corporations are established under the provisions of Part XV1 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 to secure the regeneration of their designated areas. To achieve this they have a wide

245
range of powers, including the powers to acquire, manage and dispose of land and property. With land in their control they are able to assemble sites for redevelopment, reclaim derelict and polluted land and service sites to make them attractive to investors.
One of the ways by which land can be obtained is by vesting orders, such as those we are considering tonight, made under Section 141 of the 1980 Act. This section empowers my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to vest in urban development corporations land owned by local authorities, statutory undertakers and other public bodies.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I outline briefly the problems of the six UDCs involved in these orders, and describe the provisions of the orders. The Black Country Development Corporation's area was once dominated by metal-based manufacturing industry. As this has declined it has left an abandoned and neglected landscape: The two orders before your Lordships' House tonight vest in that corporation 87 hectares of land owned by the boroughs of Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton, the Severn Trent Water Authority, the British Waterways Board and the West Midlands Residuary Body.
The Leeds Development Corporation is one of the third generation UDCs. Its area is relatively small, comprising two parts of inner city Leeds. An area south of the city centre contains a mix of industrial and commercial uses and a number of derelict, disused and vacant sites. The second area is in the Kirkstall Valley and is dominated by the vacant site of a former power station. The vesting orders will transfer 13·2 hectares of land to the development corporation. This land is currently owned by Leeds City Countil, the British Waterways Board, the West Yorkshire Residuary Body and British Rail.
Your Lordships will probably be familiar with the work of London Docklands. This corporation was set the job of securing the regeneration of the rundown and derelict docks of East London, both north and south of the Thames. The corporation has been a spectacular success. So far it has attracted over £6 billion of private sector investment to its area. The vesting orders will transfer to the corporation 2–4 hectares of land currently in the ownership of the Port of London, Thames Water and the London Borough of Newham.
The Merseyside orders include 50 hectares of land presently owned by the City of Liverpool, the borough of Wirral, the Merseyside Residuary Body, British Rail, the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive and Merseyside Transport Limited. Nearly all this land is in the newly extended area of the development corporation. This is an area primarily of industrial and commercial land, much of it now in need of regeneration.
The Sheffield Development Corporation covers some 900 hectares in the lower Don Valley to the north east of the city centre. The decline of the steel industry struck the area badly, leaving large areas of derelict and unused land and an unattractive
246
environment. The one vesting order will transfer 2·62 hectares of British Rail land to the corporation.
The Tyne and Wear Development Corporation consists of two areas along the banks of the rivers Tyne and Wear. Your Lordships will be familiar with the problems the North-East has faced. The traditional heavy industries have contracted, leaving behind a legacy of high levels of unemployment and industrial dereliction. Following last year's vesting orders, these two orders vest some 52 hectares of land in the corporation from the City of Newcastle, the boroughs of North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland, the Port of Tyne Authority and British Rail.
In conclusion urban development corporations are proving to be effective tools for tackling the problems of decay and dereliction in the hearts of some of our major cities. They are showing that vitality can be brought back to these areas, and that environments can be created where people will once again want to live and work. The orders before the House this evening will, if approved, greatly assist the UDCs in this task. If this House agrees, the orders will be debated in another place next week. I commend each of the orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved—[24th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the care he took in doing justice to the orders. I know that earlier in the evening he would have genuinely enjoyed a debate on the matters before us. However, because of the circumscription on our time tonight, he and I will have to forgo some of that. Nevertheless, we have responsibilities.
The noble Earl will accept that the basis of all the vestings is agreement between the various bodies concerned. We have come a long way since the concept of the urban development corporation was first introduced in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. I served on the Bill in another place and I know that the creation of the London Docklands Development Corporation and the Merseyside Development Corporation caused a great deal of concern. That was primarily because they were undemocratic in the eyes of the Labour Party. They are still as undemocratic, but I should like to acknowledge the reality of their achievements and the manner in which they have carried them out.
I should not go as far as the Minister in saying that in respect of London it has been a spectacular success. It may have been so for many who have invested large sums of money and received back even larger sums quickly. Certainly there is a great deal to the credit of the London Docklands Development Corporation and I shall not cavil at that.
Can the Minister help in respect of the Merseyside Development Corporation? The explanatory note states that:
"In some instances where the present ownership of the land to be vested is a matter of dispute between two or mere of the bodies mentioned in the Schedule to this Order or where the bodies own

247
different interests in the land, the description of the land is, to that extent, duplicated in the Schedule".
I am under the impression that the concept of having the right by legislation to vest land owned by one public body in another is not in dispute. Can the Minister help the House and colleagues in another place by explaining the basis upon which a dispute occurs? I shall understand if he is unable to do so.
I listened carefully to the Minister. He said that, when one looks at the size of the pieces of land affected, it is clear that they are pocket handkerchiefs which for one reason or another have been neglected or gone by default. I can see the good sense of vesting that land in the urban development corporations so that they can make better use of that small area together with others around it.
We on this side of the House recognise the important part that is being played by the development corporation idea and their creation around the country. They are a useful economic tool in the hands of an enterprising authority. However, the Minister must also take on board that those put on the board undemocratically can do their job only if they have a good relationship with the local authorities in whose areas they are seeking to work. The orders demonstrate that almost universally that goodwill is present. I am quite certain that it also exists as regards Merseyside. However, perhaps the Minister could answer the point I raised.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his comments. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in congratulating him not only on his stamina but also on his versatility, having just dealt with the Northern Ireland orders.
With the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the local authorities, the statutory undertakers and other public bodies for their constructive attitude to all these orders. Once they are approved in another place—and we hope that that will take place next week—the land will be transferred to the corporations. That will greatly assist them in their task of bringing new life to run-down inner city areas.
As regards the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, concerning Merseyside, it was discovered that the Merseyside Residuary Body, as successor to the former county council, had interests in land otherwise used by Liverpool City Council and the Borough of Wirral. Those disputes derived from poor record keeping and confusion in the transfer. I hope that the answer assists the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I hope that he is satisfied with it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I understand what the Minister said; namely, that it is not a dispute in that there is an argument as to who owns the land or what should happen to it, but rather confusion caused by the creation of succeeding authorities over the land. I hope that that is a fair interpretation of what the Minister said, and on that basis I do not ask him to rise to his feet again.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if it is in order, I should like to move the first Motion together with the remaining 10 en bloc.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I must object to that. Unless there has been a government Motion to move these orders en bloc they must be moved severally and not jointly.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is at fault there. With the permission of the House, it is possible to move a number of Motions en bloc. No, I apologise to my noble friend: I was misleading the House. The Motions have to be moved separately.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Transport Land) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Various Local Authorities) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tyne and Wear Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of Tyne Authority and British Railways Board) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leeds Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Walsall) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Thames Water Authority) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of London Authority and London Borough of Newham) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Associated British Ports (Hull) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at five minutes past one o'clock.

  RYE AND WINCHELSEA: BYPASS PROJECTS
  RYE AND WINCHELSEA: BYPASS PROJECTS
  ROCKALL: TERRITORIAL SEA LIMIT
  ROCKALL: TERRITORIAL SEA LIMIT
  HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY: DOT FUNDING
  HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY: DOT FUNDING
  SALMON: GENE BANK PROPOSAL
  SALMON: GENE BANK PROPOSAL